Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Vandalism by 212.92.0.135

This user's edit summaries consist solely of "SQUIDWARD!" and deleting the entire article and replacing it with a single image. EASports 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrator tools by JzG

JzG is using sysop powers abusively in an ongoing dispute over at Arbustoo's RfC. JzG has been systematically removing evidence contrary to his position, and deleting the edit histories involved, in an attempt to protect Arbustoo's incivil and libellous behavior. I hope someone with appropriate authority can investigate this immediately. Thanks, Bannana Peel 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What Jason Gastrich (for it is he) is referring to here is the blocking of another of his sockpuppets, King_Blinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which removed unflattering comments from the above RfC using misleading edit summaries (e.g. 'rv willy on wheels') in an attempt to disguise it. --Malthusian (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No sysop powers were used in the edits described. I removed discussion to the Talk page where it belonged, and struck two endorsements with reasons given (for example, users with no edit history who admit to using multiple accounts and who have taken no part in attempting to resolve a dispute (other than personal abuse against its subject) are not normally accepted as appropriate to endorse an RfC). These actions can be reviewed and revised by the community if they see fit, in the ususal way. The RfC is vexatious and quite likely a violation of WP:POINT but some of us at least are trying to ensure process is followed.

However, I congratulate Bannana_Peel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on finding AN/I with their very first edit - newbies are obviuously getting more clueful by the day, what with the one who raised Arbustoo's RFC managing it within their first ten edits and all. Just zis Guy you know? 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're out of your mind. In addition to numerous breaches of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, you constantly contradict yourself. The fact remains that administrator tools were used, and I cannot show diffs because I cannot see what you have deleted. Please think again if you think you can get away with this. I'm sick and tired of the constant harassment and incivility in you and the other cabalists' campaign of disinformation. Your presence is not needed here, only that of a steward, so shoo. This issue is not going to go away, and I'll take this rampant abuse on your part all the way to Jimbo if thats what it takes to ensure a fair and balanced encyclopedia.

Peace in Christ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannana Peel (talk • contribs) 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can see what JzG has deleted in this log. He has not deleted any revisions of the page in question. Chick Bowen 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're a new editor, how can you be "sick and tired" of JzG? <ponder> As for the rest, yes, please be sure to take it right to Jimbo, and ensure that your complaint is as long as possible while you're at it -- he likes to read, from what I hear. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

JamesMLane's futility principle comes to mind. . . Chick Bowen 19:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The admin tools are: rollback, block user, delete article, view/restore deleted history, protect/unprotect article. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to identify which of these was used in the case in question (hint for newbies: "none of the above" is a good first guess). Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the first instance, I think he's referring to your block of the sockpuppet that was continually removing unflattering comments. --Malthusian (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that. That, too, is visible to anyone who cares to look, open to scrutiny and reversal by other admins. But now you mention it, Gastrich does have a history of complaining about the identification of socks, even when the allegations are subsequently proven to be true. The best one was when he used one of his sock puppets to send me a Wikipedia email protesting innocence and asking for it to be unblocked, from an address on his own domain! It has been asserted that some new users go for weeks or even months without attempting to whitewash a single article on a Southern Baptist or unaccredited school, but they are not much in evidence hereabouts. Just zis Guy you know? 23:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen JzG abuse his adminstratorship once and the fact that Bannana Peel cannot form a coherent argument to demonstrate otherwise and only has two edits demonstrates this attack is rubbish. This is a fine example of why Jason Gastirch should be permanently banned. Instead of reverting vandalism or improving wikipedia, JzG is forced here to defend himself from a Gastrich sock puppet who only has a two edit history. Arbusto 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's happened, and I've learned from it. Nobody's perfect (especially me). Just zis Guy you know? 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you're as close to Mary Poppins as they come, one puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Banana Peel is a very cluey newbie. Not only is he "sick and tired" of JzG, but he seems to have a good grasp of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, even knowing the link abbreviations. Interestingly enough, he's contradictorally unaware of what constitutes a use of sysop powers, and what doesn't. Sockpuppet check, anyone? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 10:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell vandalism

User:MSTCrow (edit | [[Talk:User:MSTCrow|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Gmaxwell has been continuously reverting this user's page to versions he prefers and considers "not harmful to the project." MSTCrow - 07:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this alert from Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress for discussion, using the original edit summary as the heading. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell keeps vandalizing my userpage. I have tried to reason with him in User talk:Gmaxwell, but his response is that since I don't look kindly upon his vandalism, he's going to continue vandalizing my userpage. I have shown that there's no Wikipedia policy to justify his vandalism, but he won't listen. He has been harassing me constantly, and vandalizing my userpage minutes after I've fixed it. He then disregarded the final warning vandalism template, saying that basically he does't care, and believes that he can vandalize my page. It's my page and he cannot fiddle around with it as if it was a Wikipedia article. Thanks. MSTCrow 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Preceeding comment moved from WP:AIVpschemp | talk 08:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually MSTCrow it's the project's page and they are just letting you use it. That being said, I can't see any defence for Gmaxwell's three reverts here. - brenneman^{T}{L} 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion thread on this, [1]. I'd really like to discuss his userpage with him, and I've made a polite attempt. MSTCrow continues to respond with hostility. I honestly believe his userpage is harmful, and I'd really like him to explain why it isn't. It isn't a typical userpage, so please read the complete discussion between him and I before passing judgment. Because MSTCrow was refusing to even consider making some changes, it left me no choice but to make changes in the hope of either causing an improvement or starting a real discussion. I'm not trying to prevent him from having userboxes, although I think that whatever he does have should be presented in a way which makes them secondary to the purpose of his userpage. I'm willing, and even eager to discuss and compromise with him... but ultimately there is nothing special about the user namespace which excludes it from the normal editing process. No one gets the right to unilateral set the content of any page on Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use the word vandalism here. GMaxwell has certainly edited the page, he hasn't vandalised it. I'll go and have a word with him about it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa. I don't expect everyone to agree with my edits. But, right, it's not vandalism. I put a fair amount of time and effort into both attempting to reason with MSTCrow, and creating a proposed new version. --Gmaxwell 15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, (athough be careful about the 3RR) but why do you care so much what one person does with their user page? I can see where you're coming from and understand your oppostion, but is this realy worth disrupting peace between users? It's not lke Deeceevoice's page or something. Just leave him alone and all will be well. Why fight this battle?Gator (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about any one particular user... I've cleaned up a great many 'user pages' which were created by people who have never edited the encyclopedia (i.e. they showed up, threw up some links to their website and never used their account again). I completed the backlog of those some time ago. After having discussions with a number of people, it became clear to me that highly unprofessional userpages by active users have a potential to be harmful to the project... so I plan on having a conversation with the user attached to each one I encounter. Because of the effort required to carefully discuss and consider each situation I intend to only talk to one person at a time. I believe User:MSTCrow is special to some extent (although it is not unique) because in addition to the high level of unprofessional looking and potentially offensive content it had no balancing content related to MSTCrow's work on the project. I hope that, in the future, my interactions on this subject will be completely friendly and non-disruptive... and I intend to work hard on ensuring that, but there will still be some users who respond to a polite, compassionate, and well considered request to consider altering or accepting alterations to their userpage with contempt and incivility. In such, hopefully rare, cases we may have to ask ourselves, ultimately, "Is this the sort of person we want contributing to our project?". ... but that is a question that goes far beyond me, all I can do is try to cooperate with people to improve things. --Gmaxwell 20:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I understnad all of that and think it's great that you're so active and have a cause and all, but when you meet resistance like this in the future, my advice is to just let that fish go. They're not violating policy and if they don't want to listen to reason, then it's just not worth it (unless there is a policy change). Like I said before, pick your battles. Just my thoughts.Gator (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I support what Gmaxwell is trying to achieve here, I just don't know if I can endorse his methods. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked MSTCrow, primarily because I see no clean hands in this conflict. MSTCrow's userpage is idiosyncratic, but is hardly the most offensive user page around. I request that everyone to safe their weapons, back off coolly, and get back to creating an encyclopedia. ➥the Epopt 01:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Aucaman and User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako

Anti-Iranian attacks are taking place on Iranian articles. Articles include: Persian people, Iranian peoples, Ibn Sina, Al Biruni etc all mentioned in here: User_talk:ManiF#Iranian_watchdog

Mainly by User:Aucaman and User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako, please also read this comment User_talk:Heja_helweda#Semitic-Turkic_people which reads "The modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world"..

I hope admins can take this matter on hand, because a lot of time is being wasted by Iranians providing sources on the talk pages, however disputes carry on and edit wars etc etc with no intention of wikipedia's interest, but all politically motivated individuals are doing their best to start a small war on here.

I leave it to you, --Kash 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this request. User:Aucaman, User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako are engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing/deleting the Iran-related articles, pushing their anti-Iranian POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, applying the straw-man falsification approach, trying to establish new 'facts" based on their own personal assumptions and political beliefs. Please take a closer look at this issue. --ManiF 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore; User:Aucaman has been warned about the mentioned actions by several users on several occasions. Yet, in clear defiance of the wikipedia rules, he keeps reverting the warnings on his talk page. [2] [3] --ManiF 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The contingent of Persian/Iranian editors is strongly nationalist and extremely hostile to any editors who challenge Persian ethnic domination, speak for minority peoples, or challenge a corporatist, ultra-nationalist version of Iranian history that sees the "nation" and the "people" extending far back into prehistory. The current trend in history and archaeology is to challenge this sort of nationalism. See Historiography and nationalism. Challengers should insist that their version be allowed as an alternate view, rather than insisting that it is "the truth"; the nationalists should be willing to allow both versions in the article. Zora 19:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1) You are generalizing a group of editors based upon your personal perceptions and biases.

2) This is not about nationalism, revisionist theories and assumptions that can't supported by any authoritative sources have no place on wikipedia.

3) Making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims that "the modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world" and engaging in a campaign of misinformation and deception to push your POV and advance your political goals does not qualify as "speaking for minority peoples". --ManiF 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I don`t like jumping on the band wagon, however, it does seem that user Aucaman think the article about [persian people] has anti-semetic words like Aryan, even after I gave him refrences that say it describes the ancestors of Iranians. And user User:Heja helweda does not simply write a section in the discussion page, he or she floods the discussion pages with multiple headings and copies and pastes his or her texts in many other discussion pages. It is very disruptive. I do kind of agree that these users are cause chronic disruptions without too much merit. ThanksZmmz 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with the claims against these three wikipedians. I have seen many of the editing they have done and they are mostly baseless and outrageous claims trying to say many people and Iranians are not the same people as Persians of the past. They edit these articles with out any refrences and most people have repeatedly told them to stop, but they keep on doing it agian.

While I was trying to take part in certain discussions in a peaceful and respectful manner, I have been subject to numerous personal attacks. Please kindly check out the link. I have been accused to be Extremist, Nationalists, Pro-Seperatist Kurd, Iranian-hater, time waster. [4]Heja Helweda 00:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, these were not toward you, secondly It was because your fellow friend Aucman, has been calling all Iranian wikipedians nationalists! thirdly..

Talk:Persian_people#Article_on_ethnic_variety and Talk:Persian_people#Estimation of mixed populations shows how racist you guys really are, and you are infact carrying out research on to this idea posted here: User_talk:Heja_helweda#Semitic-Turkic_people which reads "The modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world"..

Which again, looks like you are Anti-Iranian and carrying out original research which does NOT belong to wikipedia. Its a whole campaign which has to be stopped.--Kash 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I was invited to this discussion, I basically have to say the following. Our minds work in surprising ways at the subconscious level. We're not even aware of it. Even at the risk of seeming too philosophical, I would request all the editors involved to take some time off and introspect a bit deeper on why do you want those changes made. In what way will it comfort your mind/ego? What if the reality were otherwise? Once you meditate on this, perhaps the whole thing won't look as important to you as it is looking now. Come back to the discussion from that unattached position, and I'm sure the entire issue will be resolved in no time. My personal take: As a person who identifies himself as Aryan, and living in a social system which kept intermixing impossible for millenia, I'll still be surprised to learn that no intermixing ever occured. deeptrivia (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that some 'mixings' have happened, however this has happened everywhere in the world. It has not been especially significant enough to mention it in Iranian articles. This is because the arabisation of for example Egypt, have been truely significant, and the original berbers are only a small percentage of population these days, and they have totally lost their culture. On the other hand, in Iran this is not the case, Iranians are so proud of their culture that even over a thousand years of being of mainly muslim population, they still celebrate the pre-historic Zoroastrian festival of Norouz. This is why there is no need to mention 'guess work', 'estimates', or some obsecure studies about possible mixings and inter-marriages, because they will not be useful to the article. These, as you must agree after reviewing the current attacks, are part of a campaign to change Iranian's identity which they have kept for thousands of years. --Kash 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kash and others

Some of these editors are extremely racist and anti Iranian. And whenever we try to correct them we are all called extremist nationalist and they are quick to generalize like Zora.

Some of their comments are extremely disturbing like the one who was trying to delete the world Persian by saying that no such race exist and the one who is trying to say that we are a combination of Semitic and Turkic and he wants to prove it to the world!! Obviously they are on a mission to erase the word “Persian” in any way they can. One of them wrote a paragraph basically implying that Persians are Arab by blood because there has been some interracial marriages after Arab invasion of Iran!!!! Totally refusing to mention that many other races, Greek, Turkish, Russian, …etc has also invaded Iran throughout the history. They are politically motivated and they are very biased.

Gol 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this. For the record, I am a secular person of Jewish background. I don't think the word "Aryan" smacks of racism when used in the narrow sense related to Persian ethnic heritage. (When it is used to mean "Indo-European", that is another matter.) However, because of its tricky connotations in the Western world, mostly due to its use by the Nazis, the term should be glossed whenever it is used. That is to say, on first mention in an article there should always be at least a specific link and typically a clarifying statement explaining the sense in which the word is used. For the opposite extreme—Nazi use as a seal of approval completely detached from actual ethnic heritage—see honorary Aryan.

As for any suggestion that the Persians are Arabs, it is really hard to imagine something sillier. I don't even know where to begin on such a ridiculous statement. It's as if someone were to point at Romania's one-time Hohenzollern monarchs and at the Transylvanian Saxons and say that therefore Romanians are German. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's even sillier to claim that there exists a group of people that doesn't contain some admixture of genes. We have some Persian editors claiming that "we have no Arab blood, well, only a tiny little bit, not enough to count" -- which goes against common sense and current scientific knowledge. Claiming that were NO Indo-European speaking tribes isn't right, but claiming that all the people who speak an Indo-European language are descendents of IE tribes is dead wrong. Language goes by nurture, not genetics. Both sides in the dispute would do well to do some reading in linguistics and physical anthropology. Zora 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No one is pure Zora and don’t try to say that we claimed that because we did not. Would you like to question how “German” the German people are? After all they can not be 100% German can they? We carry blood of many different races and no one claims that we have NO outside blood. But some editors were questioning the legitimacy of the term Persian by saying that no such race exists!! That we were mixed to a such degree that we should no longer be called Persian!! If that is the case then there is no other race in the world either since on one has stayed pure. how about removing the name of each and every race in the world? These editors are biased and motivated based on personal issues. Britannic says Iranian people are descendants of Aryans and I am sure its writers knew that anyone with common sense would realized that it does not mean all Iranians today are Pure Aryans but that their original ancestors were Aryans. All we want to do is mention exactly what Britannica says.

Gol 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I have been on Wikipedia since late 2004. I have around 12000 edits. Here is what I have observed of the mentioned parties involved:

• User:Aucaman: I do not know him/her. I cant really say anything about this user. Honestly, I think this user is only jumping on the bandwagon for the sake of polemics, and is simply misinformed about some realities.
• User:Diyako: This user has a good history of malicious anti-Iranian edits. It took me User:Refdoc, User:Dr.Hamed, User:TimBits and others two months to stop him from erasing the history and existence of the Azeri minority in West Azarbaijan Province of Iran, when he tried wiping out information pertaining to the Azeris in favor of a Kurdish one. Diyako is also the person who initiated the campaign to delete the Iranian people page, totally ignoring the majority consensus. And he keeps accusing everyone of attacking him while he has a sad history of attacking others. See here on this page who first initiates the name calling. There he calls me "a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad..." Diyako, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Heja Helweda is one of the greatest anti-Persian editors currently active on the internet. She has been disseminating mis-information not only on WP, but also in other places on the web: See here. Where it involves Kurds, I've also seen anti-Arab edits from this user too.--Zereshk 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that such editors have made Wikipedia a megaphonic platform for their racist anti-Iranian propaganda. But as I said before, these people are actually helping out western information agencies preparing for war against Iran. Before any war can happen, there are always preparations made on the internet to incline popular perception against the target country (previously Iraq, now Iran).

Therefore I support this request.--Zereshk 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! These Iranian (Farsi) users disagree with any edit done by other non-Iranian wikipedians. They have their own defintion (their own POV) and want to push it through threatening! I invite all admins to check whether who are neutral and who are pushing their pov through their hostile behavior and constant personal attacks.

ThanksDiyako Talk + 21:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• First this returns to when I was new on wikipedia and you despite of being an old wikipedian several times attacked me with most bad words. Second you have continued it even till this time which if necessary I can provide links to all of them in five minutes. Third, You Farsis (Iranians) who due to political and economical reasons have more access to internet when a wikipedian from Kurdish minority comes to wikipedia imidiately disagree with him, call him in every talk page separatist, and mispresent him to all other Iranians in a bad way. For example your links refereing that I am from CIA.!!! admins will know you.Diyako Talk + 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly support this request. I [am] believe it or not as neutral and fair as it can get. Moreover, I never would want to support anyone who is biased, and tries to force their personal beliefs on others. I am a student, and only stand on the side of facts. But after seeing quotes like this, this page by user Talk, who unfair personal attack actually says, : "In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's" Diyako, 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)”, and similar quotes from the two other users in question, I am almost convinced now, that these three users [may] have formed some sort of weird alliance or cabal, and do have their own personal politics involved in this. And, I have to tell you from experience, it is almost impossible to compromise with those who have a religious or political agenda. For the past year these three users, User:Aucaman, User:Diyako, and User:Heja helweda have systematically reverted articles, flooded discussion pages with repetitive rhetoric without providing authoritative sources, refused to compromise with others, personally attacked others, and put banners on almost every single article which includes, Persia, Iranian people, Persian people, Persian Empire, Aryan, the word Arya, and Indo-Iranian. I invite the admins to look up the word Aryan for themselves, and not just take our word: apparently the use of this word in certain articles is these users` latest problem, even though evidence from encyclopedias was provided to them that shows the word describes an entire ethnic group and culture. Please take a look at this mediation link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people[5]. I also think it is necessary for the admins to read some of these articles, and discussion pages for themselves. It seems, there is no compromise with these three users; there [has] to be some sort of ban, so that those who sincerely try to write legitimate articles in an encyclopedia would not throw their hands down and in disgust, and leave Wikipedia because of a few problem users. I just do not know what else we can possibly do, it seems endless, mediation pages, third opinions, warnings; nothing seems to work. ThanksZmmz 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Approve for the blocking of these users. they never want to compromise, and continuously vandalise!Iranian Patriot 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support as per Zereshk's reasons. SouthernComfort 07:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

These Iranian users lost the discusstion and want admins block us!Diyako Talk + 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this request. These users have proven beyond any doubts, by their extremely anti-Iranian edits, personal accusations, and refusal to accept or even look at scholarly evidence, that they do not have noble intentions in editing pages on Wikipedia. They are simply a number of extremists who are using Wikipedia as a platform to spread falsehoods supporting their political ideologies. They have been treated by the outmost respect by the other editors. Unlike the exclusively-Kurdish, anti-Iranian, anti-Persian, at times even Anti-Azeri stance by these Kurdish editors, the Iranian editors dealing with them have always shown the most of respect for the Kurdish and other ethnic groups of Iranian peoples. The behavior of these anti-Iranian users is unacceptable and dangerous and must be dealt with accordingly. Shervink 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Strong Support All of my reasons are the same as everyone else here trying to stop these users from vandalising!! --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: The way to deal with these people is to take them to ArbCom. I think we have a case to ban them from Iranian articles based on their obsession with dismantling Iranian articles. We did this once with another user. He was banned permanently from editing specific articles.--Zereshk 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Another user has voiced his support here.--Zereshk 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Aucaman, Diyako, Heja, and also a user named Ahwaz have all been trying to insert minority viewpoints in Iran-related articles, only to be constantly reverted and attacked by a contingent of Persian editors insisting that they are disruptive, anti-Iranian, racist, etc. It would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia administrative process to use it to suppress minority voices. I'm not defending ALL the actions of the above users -- some of them have narrow viewpoints, sometimes they have little in the way of social scientific background, and they've gotten angry and used ill-tempered language themselves. Often, they seem to want to take over articles for their own viewpoints, rather than allowing all POVs to be displayed.

However, if Wikipedia is to be NPOV, it must allow Iranian ethnic minorities their say. If their arguments are specious, then that will be apparent when the arguments are displayed. However, the anti-minority editors want ALL mention of dissent squashed, which is wrong. I've gotten involved in the Khuzestan-related articles and I've been given the same treatment -- verbal abuse, removal of disputed tags, refusal to allow alterate viewpoints.

A whole swathe of articles is at issue, and it is going to some effort by non-Iranian, non-minority editors to enforce some even-handedness. Zora 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of all editors who support this action, I would like to say, unfortunately we strongly disagree Zora. With all due respect, you cannot use Wikipedia as a political platform, nor hide under the notion of a minority group, or as neutral users, when for the [past year and a half], you and the other three users try to insert some enormously controversial political issues, or some hypothesis that is not universally backed by [one] major source like a major encyclopedia, and then refuse to compromise on the issue that the over-whelming consensus agrees with. You four users simultaneously revert articles, put numerous banners on articles, and engage in edit wars, while flooding the discussion pages of these articles with an excessive amount of texts, sucking-in all the other editors, forcing them to defend their writings which are always backed with multiple references. After proving proof to you, you gives responses such as, “Dictionaries and encyclopedias are not reliable guides to contemporary academic standards. They are inevitably behind the times”[6]. The mediators from whom we asked for help, all attest to that. Moreover, that is unfair to label all the editors who edit in articles about Persia or others, anti-Arabs, “Iranian-Editors”, or even “Iranian-Terrorists”, implying some sort of biasness. I have provided proof of such talk in the above sections already. You and the other three users start a dispute, forcing all the other editors that had agreed to a consensus to come and justify their edits, and provide you with their references, again and again and again. Also, just to be clear, not all of these editors are Iranian themselves, and some of us have keen interest and knowledge about ancient civilizations such as Rome, Persia, Greece, and Egypt. While your edits may be fine if you are writing a newspaper article, nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, and that is not appropriate. You don’t have to be pro or anti anything; rather, only on the side of the facts. Zora, it seems that over 98 percent of [your] edits have to do with some sort of pro-Islamic, pro-Arab articles. And, unfortunately your edits, such as for example, trying to change the heritage of the beloved worldly renowned Sufi poet Rumi from Persian to simply Muslim, even though many of these editors have provided you and others with numerous references such as encyclopedias that unanimously state that poet is Persian, reveals some sort of a hidden agenda. Or, better yet, to this date, without discussion, many, many times you erased and keep repetitively erasing an [entire section] in the Islamic conquest of Persia article[7][8][9][10], without even discussing it with [anyone], without providing one single source, and even though as a so called “neutral” user, you know well that in order to be fair, we must present both sides of an argument in an article. You then go to that article again, and change some simple words that afterwards make the article sound differently; it makes it into an almost one sided, pro-Islamic propaganda. Such subtle changes of a few words that have an impact on the language of an article are called “weasel words” in Wikipedia. You inserted some info that the post-Islamic Persia had been basically “Arabized”, and in so many words you stated, there no longer be a so called Persian culture. Of course these are just two examples, however, there are records in the history pages of your talk page, as well as the talk pages of the three users in question that show you have repeatedly tried to ask each other for help, and called good intentioned editors (some with academic degrees in history), “Iranian Nationalists”, “terrorists”, etc. As the history of you talk page also shows Zora, you have tried to always back-up the other three users, and even asked these other three users in question to help-you-out on articles you feel that are not going your way. Although there is nothing wrong with users agreeing on a subject, however, in this case clearly the other users like Heja Helweda, and Aucaman did not have any knowledge of the content of some the articles you asked help for, and they simply rushed to your aid. That actually [is] pushing one’s POV, and trying to go against a consensus that was already established by some editors. You, along with these three editors have inserted sections like for example `Genetics Test on Kurds`, that is not backed by [one] major source such as an encyclopedia, into articles about Iranians. Not only articles like that should not be put into an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, at least not yet, but also you had made 3/4 of that entire Iranian people article, flooded with some info about the Kurds, and that Genetics Test. When others tried to request that valid references be provided, and/or to kindly move that section to an article about the `Kurds` perhaps, you and these three users teamed-up again, and an edit war ensued on almost [all] articles that have anything to do with Persia. Despite requests for a third opinion, which we did on many of these articles, despite setting-up a Mediation Cabal, and despite providing numerous references to you Zora, user Aucaman, user Heja Hlwelda, and user Diyako, all of you four users refused to compromise, and instead started almost vandalizing other articles. Please know that, we sincerely believe that these three users and you Zora [are] using Wikipedia to push some political agendas, and are at best abusing your editing privileges. And, while we do not want to have the banning of any user on our conscious, we can now honestly say the only remedy for these misuses of editing privileges here is to block or ban these three users, and again, you as well Zora. Please be aware that users who try so hard to push a POV, cannot work with others, and perhaps may be blinded by their passions, and this regrettably is not an ideal environment to write an encyclopedia in. Users like you just end-up driving away editors who have something legitimate to contribute to these articles.Zmmz 07:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zmmz's comments. I'd also like to point out that this is not about minorities or minorities' right or anything like that, as I am myself half-Kurdish and half-Azeri and none of the users filing this complaint are homogeneous by ethnicity, that's just Zora's assumption or accusation. We are not at all concerned about minority viewpoints in Iran-related articles, on the contrary we encourage such viewpoints because many of us are Iranian minorities or not even Iranian. Disrupting the Iran-related articles on wikipedia and using wikipedia as a platform to pursue a political agenda, is what we are against. If you take a look at those three individuals' "contributions", you can see a clear pattern of disrupting Wikipedia articles that are about Iran or Iranians. --ManiF 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that Zora often interjects her own personal opinions into articles, without even bothering to add a source. [11] She has also deleted almost the entire content of the Khuzestan article in the past without discussion [12] [13] [14] [15] Note also that for many edits she does not cite sources, yet is prone to attack other editors for their not citing sources (even when sources have been cited). [16] I could go on and on but there are too many diffs to provide here and they go back a long time. She continues to make personal attacks, while ignoring the behavior of others who are not Persian or Iranian - when an editor who see views as a minority makes unsourced claims or injects personal opinion into an article, she quickly looks the other way and remains silent. I myself am only half-Persian and yet she has attacked me constantly as a "Persian nationalist." The only way to deal with such a user to is to take the case to ArbCom. SouthernComfort 08:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This incident is being discussed at: Talk:Persian_people#Administrator.27s_noticeboard --Fasten ^talk|med 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We just wanted to provide some diffs, in this case reverts and personal attacks by user Heja Helweda, since after apparently a stub in regards to `Turkish-Kurdistan` I believe was asked by some other users to be voted on for deletion, this user who seems to be a Kurdish political activist, now along with articles about Persia, he or she is actively involved in the political articles about the country of Turkey. It seems this is being done as some sort of weird vendetta, and this may demonstrate that such activism is not appropriate in Wikipedia. The diffs are, [17][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Turkey&diff=42589346&oldid=42376753][18][19][20].Zmmz 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support for banning these vandals. They regularly damage articles pertaining to Iran and spread misinformation. --Houshyar 18:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Support as per Zereshk and SouthernComfort's reasons. -- Amir85 20:17, Tuesday 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. An RFC would be more approporate, I'll be collecting necesary evidence against the people in question at User:Cool Cat/RfC March 2006. Anyone is welcome to assist. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an angel or perfect person, but I have been subjected to numerous personal attacks recently. I generally tend not to discuss these issues, but just for better clarification, I would like to provide links to personal attacks directed at me. Sometimes I have controversial views, not supported by many people, but I have never resorted to personal attacks. I look at wikipedia as a place to acquire knowledge and practice tolerance.

Personal attacks by User:Zereshk:

1. Saying that you hate Iranians is not a personal attack. It's a fact, plain and simple.[21]
2. The level of anti-Iranian hatred you exhibit actually hurts many Kurds. and I'm not an ethnically driven bigot like you and your twisted friend[22]
3. Every Iranian editor is insulted by your Iranophobia. Leave us alone[23]
4. You have quite a hatred against Persia and Iran[24].
5. A bigot by definition is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Im sorry, but that is exactly the behaviour you exhibit.[25]
6. Edit summary of Iranian Kurdistan: I know you hate Persians. Take your hatred elsewhere [26].
7. Please kindly retract your hatred of Iranians[27].
8. they fucking hate Iran and Iranians from the bottom of their hearts? Mercenaries with an agenda to spread hatred against Iran on Wikipedia.[28]
9. Every Iranian editor is insulted by your Iranophobia. Leave us alone[29].Heja Helweda 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is not about being an angel Heja Helweda, it is about the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, working on consensus, and it is not a political platform. Your contributions diffs, some of which are listed above, show an enormous amount of political activism by you. It just has no place in here.Zmmz 17:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Personal Attacks by User:Aucaman

“For more examples of Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Wikipedia. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated.” Aucaman^Talk 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)][30]

“Regarding your edit here. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism” [31].

“Yes, I don't like racist, inaccurate POV. Is there anything wrong with that?” Aucaman^Talk 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[32]

“What are you guys even talking about? Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article.” Aucaman^Talk 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[33]

“Just because you read something in your 2nd grade history book in some other language it doesn't mean you can put it in Wikipedia. See WP:NOR”. Aucaman^Talk 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[34]

“You don't know what you're talking about. Persian Jews are more than just Persian-speaking.”[35]

“You don't know what you're talking about Kash. Aryan now means "Indo-European"? Is that really what you want to say? Or do you mean "Indo-Iranian"? Do you even know the difference?” Aucaman^Talk 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) [36]

“The problem is that the use of the word meaning "Indo-Iranian" is no longer in technical use and I've given enough evidence to support this. Your sources are outdated and not significant. You're just wasting my time” Aucaman^Talk 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[37]

“And what are my views? You don't even listen.” Aucaman^Talk 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[38]

"You asked for it. I tried to remove the false and racialist information, but you.....Some people here don't seem to understand the difference between a linguistic group and a racial group...."[39]

“There........(such as myself) who don't blindly follow nationalistic race origin theories. I've been accused of being "anti-Iranian" here, but I think those self-appointed representatives of Iranians who are misrepresenting them are as anti-Iranian as one can be. Bad news for the real anti-Iranians: most Iranians today don't subscribe to racist theories imposed on them by outsiders. (Most of these theories about the origins the origins of Iranians were brought to Iran by Iranian scholars studying in Germany or German scholars visiting Iran.” Aucaman^Talk 04:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[40]

“#Oppose. Seems a little too interested in the politics of Wikipedia. We need more contributors, not power-grabbers. Relatively few Talk namespace edits”. Aucaman^Talk 05:01, 27 February 2006[41]

“You're trying to point to valid interpretations of the word "Aryan" to somehow justify its racist interpretation. Not going to work”. Aucaman^Talk 04:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[42]

“There are a lot of stuff taught in the books in Iran that are not true. (They say that Iran is a true democracy and that United States is a dictatorship ran by Zionists.... You wanna go ahead and add these information into the respective articles?). A lot of stuff were written during the Pahlavi regime to create a sense of nationalism to counterbalance the Mullah's religious beliefs. Some of them still remain today. It doesn't mean they're true”.Aucaman^Talk 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[43]

“Hi. A number of users have tried to re-introduce the (racist interpretation of the) term "Aryan" into Iran-related articles such as Demographics of Iran, Persian people, and Iranian peoples.”[44]. Zmmz 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Personal Attacks by User:Diyako

“Merhaba, There is a dispute ongoing in the article Iranian peoples. Some Pan-Iranist users are changing the defintion of Iranian peoples (an unknown and not widely used term) from its linguistic meaning to linguistic, cultural and racial issues. According to their wrong defintion many people are labelled as Iranian, including parts of Turkish population. If you have time and are interested in the issue I ask you to join the discussion. Thank you very much.” Talk[45] Zmmz 06:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

“In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's..” Diyako Talk + 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[46] Zmmz 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sasanjan 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC): I support! As an Iranian, I hate Racism or any kind misuse in Wikipedia, such moves must face strongest possible answers. Inactive their users untill real apologises from them.

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

A bird in the hand (talk · contribs) is clearly yet another sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. Evidence: this edit at Terrorism (disambiguation), philosophical discussion at ElectricRay's talk page, edits to The Singularity Is Near, and of course, posts at Talk:Terrorism. Someone please ban this one, and we'll wait for the next one. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please ask for a Checkuser test on the IP addresses.Gator (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no question that it's him or someone pretending to be him. I've blocked the account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that we've all been here before, but, just as an experiment, next time why don't you wait till Zephram actually does something trollish or objectionable before blocking him? ElectricRay 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Lady in Red (talk · contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys ... other than some strange satisfaction deriving from the power trip, what is this really achieving? That's all I want to know ... ElectricRay 18:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just about everything he does is trollish, ER, which is in part how his accounts are recognized. As User:A bird in the hand, he started trying to restore his old nonsense about terrorism. If he ever started to edit constructively, we wouldn't know it was him, and therefore he likely wouldn't be blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

we'll have to agree to disagree, Slim, but I respect your point of view. I don't think his edits to Terrorism (this time) were trollish at all: Edit 1; Edit 2; Terrorism Talk ElectricRay 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The very presence of an Arbcom-banned editor here is sufficient; it doesn't matter what he does or does not do. He made his presence obvious enough for someone to notice; as you pointed out on your own talk page, "You just couldn't stop yourself going back to that terrorism page, could you... and you were doing so well." If he stops acting like the banned Zephram Stark, he won't be treated like the banned Zephram Stark. It's that simple. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ER, this time he added the mad stuff to Terrorism (disambiguation), [47] first expanded by his sockpuppets Peter McConaughey and Legal Tender. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ahh, ok, i hadn't noticed the stuff on disambig page. Fair play to you, Slim. ElectricRay 21:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Uncle Skull (talk · contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

All three confirmed as sockpuppets of Zephram Stark. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Then has ZS's original ban been officially reset yet? --TML1988 12:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably no hurry on that. I have blocked Hypnodude (talk · contribs) as his latest. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not blocked Yellow Ribbon (talk · contribs), but someone might keep an eye on him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked it. It's him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Tipps (talk · contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

New sockpuppet: History Repeats (talk · contribs). Based on this edit at Declaration of Independence (United States) which is identical to this edit by his previous sockpuppet Cheese Curd and others. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not a sockpuppet. --History Repeats 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• New sockpuppets:
  • Intellibot (talk · contribs), based on this edit restoring talk posts by previous sockpuppets.
  • Gay Cowboys Unite! (talk · contribs). Nonsense posts to Talk:Terrorism. User name probably a play on words of previous sockpuppet User:Go Cowboys. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby breaking parole with impunity

I wish to bring to your attention the recent activities of KDRGibby, who I'm sure you'll remember from this ArbCom case. Since the closure of his case (which resulted in him being put on parole and probation for personal attacks), Gibby has made the following comments on the talk pages of articles on my watchlist. Keep in mind that I have not covered all his contributions; many more personal attacks could exist. What I find amazing is that no admin has yet taken it upon himself to enforce the ArbCom decision and block Gibby (I believe the maximum punishment is in order for such blatant disregard not only for the community, but also for the ArbCom itself):

• [48] "Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please."
• [49] "the complaint is actually...stupid"
• [50] "The neutrality complaint is stupid. [...] Nikodemos is simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade."
• [51] "Ironically you make the same sophomoric arguement that you complain about. Free markets are only an impossibility if you don't understand what the word means."
• [52] "I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material."
• [53] "You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE!"
• [54] "This is the problem with people like you. [...] Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions."
• Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: [55] (added "only because citing free market economists is obviously pov" in a NPOV tag).
• [56] "There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule!"
• [57] "ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit!"
• [58] "Nati, you are making up crap again. You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of."
• Refusing to keep a NPOV tag on a disputed article: [59] "the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV."
• [60] "Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing."
• [61] "Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods."
• [62] "Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS." (referring to the actions of a number of users)
• [63] "If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you."

Collected by Nikodemos 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

This is from my talk page. Parole is enforced by administrators. Fred Bauder 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

KDRGibby was blocked for supposed violations of his personal attacks parole. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. His comments may have been angry, but, if they're in response to someone removing sourced edits without explanation, to a certain extent justified. If he's blocked, at least the people deleting valid info should be too. Please review this block.- Mgm|^(talk) 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Personal attacks are personal attacks, and KDRGibby knows full well what making personal attacks will cost him. To quote WP:NPA, "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors." Incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Then could you explain exactly what part of his edit was a personal attack. All I see is anger, but as far as I know that's not a blockable offense. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that when KDRGibby says, "You lefties are so gd amazing!" he's not referring to his fondness for southpaws. Lumping his opponents together using a term clearly meant to be pejorative, all wrapped up in a number of comments that certainly fall outside the bounds of civility, is a personal attack—and moreover is something that someone who knows he is on an attack parole should know not to do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, we don't block for "removing sourced edits without explanation". If an editor has violated WP:3RR, please feel free to list that at WP:AN/3RR. Jkelly 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We should. Why wait for an edit war if it can be nipped in the but my simply requiring an explanation? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You might then propose a policy change. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That was only one edit among 20 others — see the top of this page - see header 2 of this page. He's started similar behaviour again, after his block. Can someone please review his edits. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to investigate Gibby's most recent behavior, since the expiry of the block instituted by Tom Harrison 22:23 on March 1. Since it expired he has made an incredible 60 edits,

Firstly looking at his edit summaries alone I see:

• "the nuetrality dispute is because the leftists won't allow factual cited criticism to be present. stop abusing wiki rules for political purposes.)"
• "that is not a legitimate reason to revert the text. You will do anythign to keep outstuff you don't like won't you. The other editors deletion excuse was it need sp corrects. I say fix it then"
• "sorry you deleted cited credible material again, this is bordering on vandalism..."

In the arbitration case, it was found that KDRGibby has said things like (names etc removed):

• "X is an immature communist brat from P who keeps deleting this and my other sections from Wiki, she has violated the 3rev policies multiple times and gets away with. Has no logical arguementation skills, and no ability to defend her deltions.
• "Y you are an Fing MORON! You delete Hayek's interpretation as PROPOGANDA? What BS"
• "rules mean nothing here, fuck the wikis the little bastards can't follow their own rules, and dont edit my own discussion page."

and that these were personal attacks. Okay maybe the edit summaries weren't in quite the same category. Accusing people of abusing the rules, activities bordering on vandalism, and being willing to "do anythign to keep outstuff you don't like" may all be legitimate criticisms, though the edit summary is hardly an appropriate place to make them.

Of those recent edit summaries, only calling someone a leftist could possibly be interpreted as an attack. What he said before his arbcom case is not relevant to a block one places now.

While he was blocked, KDRGibby said this on his talk page:

• "I try civility, but its very hard when dealing with so many moronic logically inconsistant editors and biased lazy administrators who only follow the rules to suite their political prefrences against users they ideologically disagree with." [64]

Well that's a personal attack but it's a fairly diffuse one. The "moronic logically inconsistant editors and biased lazy administrators who only follow the rules to suite their political prefrences against users they ideologically disagree with" aren't actually named (though we could infer). And in any case it could be a legitimate complaint (has he filed an RfC?)

So let's see what else he's been up to:

Since being unblocked he has said:

• "Oh and comparing classical liberals to "elitist republicans" not only shows your own bias, but extreme ignorance!!! They are nothing alike! Not to mention you have no citation for your little original research. Your entire edit is predicated on your own original research while erasing the publicated cited researched sources that say things you disagree with. YOU HAVE TO DO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS! (Gibby 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC))" [65]
  • Pretty angry stuff. And very strong criticism. But not perhaps in the realm of personal attack. Just not polite.
• "I'm not calling you a vandal, i'm calling you a left wing censor." [66]

But the sheer weight of these edits must be crippling to dialog. He is permanently angry and he had made 60 edits to just 10 or so articles and their talk pages. The Committee found that he "consistently fails to assume good faith" and this seems to be what is at the bottom of his disruptive behavior.

While I don't think another block is necessarily merited (he's angry as hell, but not as bad as he has been), his behavior still falls far below an acceptable level and if it continues he *will* be repeatedly blocked for personal attacks. I do think this problem editor's activities on the following articles, amongst others, should be monitored, and if necessary we should consider banning him from those that he disrupts:

• Altruistic Economics, Classical liberalism, Economic progressivism, Fair trade

In the arbitration case, it was found that he had engaged in tendentious editing, edit warring, removal of large blocks of information, and acting immaturely (WP:POINT was cited). Remedies include an impressive array of probations for disruption. It would probably be a kind act to ban him from editing articles that obviously cause him great mental anguish, rather than letting him continue to get angrier and angrier until he lashes out again. --Tony Sidaway 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gibby has continued his behaviour and aggressive revert warring. Any action going to be taken? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

A number of administrators are now trying to modify this editor's bad behavior. If he acts badly, he gets a very brief block (a few hours at most) and a note explaining precisely why he has been blocked. We can hope that he will quickly learn to stop doing the things that cause him to be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He was just blocked a couple of minutes ago for three hours. I subsequently protected his userpage (warning removal vandalism), afterwhich he attacked me in email. I told him I wouldn't tolerate another outburst, because, and I believe strongly that, most of us want to see him become a conducive editor, and I was trying to be fair. I haven't listed the page on WP:PP (useless, since it's only three hours), though. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:03 UTC (2006-03-07)

User:-Ril-

-Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked again as a sock of CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by Michael_Snow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). This happened before and I believe ArbCom rejected the allegation: [67]. I am not going to get into a wheel war with another admin, especially since I think -Ril- has hardly made a great impression lately, but I have had an email from -Ril- protesting innocence and I am inclined to take it at face value. Just zis Guy you know? 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, I didn't reject it. I was merely bowing to the superior experience of my colleagues to CheeseDreams. I am still personally of the opinion that -Ril- may well be a sockpuppet of CD. All the evidence is circumstantial, but it all adds up to a fairly convincing picture. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there are several points to add here. One is that the Arbitration Committee rejected the case, not the allegation itself. Another is that there really wasn't any evidence to exonerate -Ril-, and the arguments that the two might be different people are extremely vague. If some people were unconvinced, I'd say they either haven't carefully studied the behavior of both accounts, or they are perhaps mistaking changes in tone for changes in character. There's also the additional evidence pointed out in the section above.

Finally, I've already discussed this issue with -Ril- personally. I think it's quite telling that through all this, and even in the face of direct questions, -Ril- still has not given anything more than a non-denial. --Michael Snow 23:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

CheeseDreams made a big impression on me. I doubt very much that -Ril- is connected with him. Fred Bauder 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A number of us are quite convinced, based on the extent to which -Ril- and CheeseDreams share editing interests, opinions, tactics, and stylistic quirks. If there is reason for doubt, we'd like very much to know what those reasons are. --Michael Snow 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any block of -Ril- or any other user based on suspicion alone. Unless a user is engaged in repeated, blatant vandalism, an indefinite block should require more than just one admin's feelings. If Michael has strong evidence, he should take it to Arbcom. Wasn't that already done, and rejected before, though? In my opinion, -Ril- should be unblocked until and unless a much more convincing case is presented. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, the only thing the Arbitration Committee rejected was the case, not the evidence. And generally they've responded to requests about reincarnations of banned users by indicating it's not up to them to re-ban them every time it comes up. --Michael Snow 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is supposed to happen to Ril's current arbitration case? This block seems like it's usurping Arbcom's jurisdiction. He should at least have an opportunity to speak in his own defense in the Arbcom case. Users guilty of much worse disruption have been granted that much. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't usurping the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction, it's implementing their ruling in the CheeseDreams case. Dealing with the newly opened case is easy enough, it can be closed with no further action taken. --Michael Snow 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked but I'm not going to wheel war. Secretlondon 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor I, I'll simply have to submit the evidence as part of the newly opened case, so that the Arbitration Committee can actually decide the issue instead of avoiding it. --Michael Snow 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committe rejected the argument itself. Read the Epopt's statement for yourself - here is the entire Arbitration Request. When I emailed him to request being unblocked, Fred Bauder emailed back yesterday confirming that he believes the idea of me being CheeseDreams implausible. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the facts

See below for proof

-Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is

81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log) who is

CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · block log)

If you have any Questions please contact me. Dwho 04:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the truth of the matter is, The Epopt and Fred Bauder, despite their many strengths, do not equal the Arbitration Committee. I am certainly keeping an open mind on the matter. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for too long! When will it end? ~~~~ or User:-Ril- and their suspected Sock Puppets have:

• Engaged in personal attacks through stalking and revenge reverts and edits against other users

• Engaged in RfC certification fraud

• Engaged in article vandalism by deleting (multiple times) an editor's statements

• Engaged in disruption of Wiki

• Used misleading and deceptive edit summaries

• Attacked other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions

• Attacked users who questioned his claims

• Vandalism

• Sockpuppetry

A large number of his edits are for the purpose of harassing/attacking other users or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia.

-Ril- (talk · contribs · block log)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-/Evidence

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-

• User talk:-Ril-/ban. The Uninvited Co., Inc.

• [68]

• [69]

• [70]

• [71]

Misuse of Speedy Tags

I've been clearing up the speedy deletion backlog, and ran into this: first request, denied, same content, but he has another go, but I didn't fall for it. Whether something should be done with that page is a question for a more experienced admin, but even I (admin < 1 week) can tell he's trying to play the system. --kingboyk 22:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Sock Puppets of Ril

Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · block log)

User:TheFacts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revision history

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, m = minor edit

(cur) (last) 19:18, 16 February 2006 Doc glasgow (indefblocked)

(cur) (last) 19:14, 16 February 2006 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 19:06, 16 February 2006 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 06:11, 16 February 2006 TheFacts (The Facts on -Ril-)

From one sock to another (cur) (last) 19:37, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→From one sock to another)

(cur) (last) 19:08, 14 July 2005 Doc glasgow (→From one sock to another - OK, but ....)

(cur) (last) 18:52, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→From one sock to another)

(cur) (last) 18:49, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→From one sock to another)

(cur) (last) 18:45, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→From one sock to another)

(cur) (last) 18:29, 14 July 2005 Doc glasgow (→From one sock to another - BTW)

(cur) (last) 17:40, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→My username)

(cur) (last) 17:39, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→My username)

(cur) (last) 17:36, 14 July 2005 Doc glasgow (From one sock to another)

Authentic Matthew From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Revision history (Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, m = minor edit

(cur) (last) 23:10, 4 August 2005 Doc glasgow m (redirecting Being bold - enough is enough)

(cur) (last) 08:46, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (→Modern theory of the origin of the canonical Gospel of Matthew - rewrite for accuracy)

(cur) (last) 08:42, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (→Modern theory of the origin of the canonical Gospel of Matthew --irrelevance)

(cur) (last) 08:40, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (→The development of the canonical Gospel of Matthew - rename section)

(cur) (last) 08:39, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (merge two paragraphs)

(cur) (last) 08:38, 31 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 08:38, 31 July 2005 -Ril- m (→Matthew and Aramaic)

(cur) (last) 08:37, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (+sections)

(cur) (last) 08:35, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (merge two paragraphs together)

(cur) (last) 08:32, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (-duplication)

(cur) (last) 08:31, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (more tidying)

(cur) (last) 08:28, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (re-arrange a bit)

(cur) (last) 08:23, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (-duplication)

(cur) (last) 08:23, 31 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 08:22, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (re-arrange)

(cur) (last) 08:18, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (better wording & minus links actually discussing the content of the article Gospel of the Hebrews rather than a Hebrew Gospel)

(cur) (last) 08:14, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (tidy up that sentence)

(cur) (last) 23:01, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (I give up - this is beyond redemption)

(cur) (last) 22:54, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (remove total speculation)

(cur) (last) 22:52, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (correct facts and misleading impressions)

(cur) (last) 22:51, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (correct facts and misleading impressions)

(cur) (last) 22:41, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (Matthew was certainly written way before Jerome)

(cur) (last) 13:34, 30 July 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (This VfD was only just closed. I'm sorry that this hasn't been accepted, but it was conducted properly. Removing VfD tag - I have deleted the new VfD Ril started. That is disruption.)

(cur) (last) 10:52, 30 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 10:50, 30 July 2005 81.156.176.160

(cur) (last) 10:50, 30 July 2005 81.156.176.160

(cur) (last) 10:48, 30 July 2005 81.156.176.160

(cur) (last) 10:46, 30 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 10:45, 30 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 07:09, 30 July 2005 Dmcdevit (survived vfd, see talk)

(cur) (last) 21:57, 29 July 2005 Doc glasgow (rv pornovandalism WARNING vandal is impersonating another user)

(cur) (last) 21:49, 29 July 2005 --Ril--

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentic_Matthew"

• Well, there are so many things that make "Doc" look like -Ril-,

mostly based on interests,

location,

and User page,

It is certainly possible that Ril had fun and sacrificed one of his socks and wants to carefully live on under the radar as a user

81.156.177.176 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

-Ril- uses to avoid block.

81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

-Ril- uses this sock to attack Authentic Matthew and defend other socks.

CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For 81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log) (-Ril-)

19:28, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (→Statement by James F.)

19:24, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (→CheeseDreams)

02:09, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dr Zen

02:08, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) User:Dr Zen

02:06, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Now

02:05, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) 4

02:04, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Bye

02:03, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Saying

02:02, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Dream

02:02, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Cheese

I have further concerns with the amount of accounts created. The accounts User:CheeseDreams, User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams and User:Cheese -dreamsand has the possible accounts User:CheeseyDreams, User:CheezDreams and User:CHEESEdreams though I can't be sure. User:Jayjg says that there are many more sockpuppets than that, including User:Acidmonkey, User:Neutra¦ity, User:Fish lizard, and User:To register select a username, though without a developer checking we can't be sure. My point here: I would like all verified sock-puppets blocked indefinitely. A good-fath editor should not normally need more than one account!

Lastly, I am extremely unimpressed by the fact that CheeseDreams tried to do editing by proxy via her friend User:Tigermoon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive5#Tigermoon_and_CheeseDreams - many admins feel that this was done to bypass block.

Fish Supper (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For 81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log) (-Ril-)

00:12, 20 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

00:10, 20 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

00:07, 20 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dante Alighieri (→HELP)

00:07, 20 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

23:22, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

23:18, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mirv/Archive 11 (→HELP)

23:17, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

23:16, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

23:15, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mirv/Archive 11 (HELP)

23:15, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Lord Emsworth (HELP)

23:15, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dante Alighieri (HELP)

23:15, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Angela (HELP)

23:11, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Brian0918 (HELP)

23:11, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:ClockworkSoul (HELP)

23:10, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fennec (HELP)

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

Fish Supper (talk · contribs) and 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) are likely The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs), which would push the revert count much higher.

Note also the connection with User:The Rev of Bru [72], which would indicate even more reverts.

The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

Fish Supper (talk · contribs) and 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) are likely The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs), which would push the revert count much higher.

Note also the connection with User:The Rev of Bru [73], which would indicate even more reverts.

81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

81.156.93.48 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

This IP adress is known to have been used by User:-Ril- whilst banned from editing.

81.156.95.91 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

11:12, 20 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Authentic Matthew (r.v. to version by RussBot)

81.156.176.160 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

You have been named as one of the alledged "group" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ril Group-New Violation-Authentic Matthew --Ron. 14:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

-RonTaril- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence.

-Ronny- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence.

-Ronny-Taril- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence.

-Taril- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence.

Lir (talk · contribs · block log)

• The Bible and history - Mel Etitis got involved purely because of a long term grudge against me (due to erroneously believing me to be a sockpuppet of User:Lir, which David Gerard has stated is unlikely, particularly as Lir's grammar isn't so good, and she lives in Ohio), as Mel Etitis has on other edit wars against POV pushers I have been involved

1. ~~<nowiki>~~</nowiki> ( ! | ? | * ) 10:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wife of -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-.

Please refer to user contributions for evidence

--Dwho 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI

I do have to say that he is a knowledgable editor and has dedication. However, we have been having some issues lately. This would be an ordinary content dispute; however, SPUI has been uncivil (reverting with no discussion of templates, edit summaries, and various comments to users using profanity and references to body parts). Also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war has placed him on probation, I believe.

Pages affected: (feel free to add others)

• California State Route 1
• Template:Routeboxca2
• Template:Routeboxca
• California State Route 15
• California State Highway 17
• California State Route 283
• I-95 exit list revert war (SPUI replaces the page with a redirect)
• California State Route 905
• California State Route 330
• Washington State Route 99
• California State Route 99
• California State Route 190
• California State Route 371

Also see page move log.

Pages with incivil comments:

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 2
• User talk:Nohat
• Talk:California State Highway 17
  • "Oh eat my penis. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A very compelling argument, indeed. Nohat 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"

• Comment "Fix the errors and general bullshit in State Route 15 (California) and Interstate 605 (California) once the 3RR deadline expires" on userpage

Very strange page moves:

• 21:43, February 28, 2006 SPUI m (moved Talk:Highway 17 as the local idiots call it to Talk:Highway 17 (California))

(cur) (last) 21:41, February 28, 2006 SPUI m (moved Talk:California State Highway 17 to Talk:Highway 17 as the local idiots call it)

Really, this is two disputes here: regarding infoboxes and naming. However, the infobox one is involving the remodeling of it, and the naming one has to do with the controversial road naming policy WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that his probation applies to disruption and provocation, not colorful language. I wish SPUI would be more civil; I think we all do. But (absent any diffs) I don't see anything here that's escalated beyond a typical content dispute. Chick Bowen 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not even the arbcom thought a civility/NPA based remedy was a workable proposition... :/ Looks to me at first sight like a content dispute bordering on revert-warring, but then again there's no specific provision about that either. I'll try the "having a quiet word" approach -- someone throw water on me if I return in the form of a charred lump. Alai 06:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: 1) Neither civility nor edit warring were brought before us, and the case dealt with SPUI in a very limited way. The ruling is not at all a tacit approval of his other behaviors. 2) Under probation, he may be banned for disruption of any kind, at the discretion of an administrator. This can very plausibly include either incivility or edit warring, if an administrator deems him to be acting disruptively in that regard. Dmcdevit·t 08:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was in no way suggesting there was any "tacit approval". To clarify myself: my judgement is that his edit-warring and incivility is not particularly disruptive in these cases. But that's a sufficiently open-ended criterion that others must equally decide that for themselves. (Now, his signature I consider pretty WP:POINT-laden, but I don't think I'm entirely uninvolved or neutral on that, so won't be taking any action on it myself.) Alai 19:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the link you gave, WP:NC/NH, which SPUI created, it appears SPUI is acting in good faith, by persuing, consistent, more general resolution to the naming disputes regarding roads throughout the United States. — Mar. 3, '06 [06:14] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The problem is beginning to spread. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to I-95 exit list, yes. The article went to AfD, and no consensus was reached, yet he turned the article into a redirect—repeatedly and four times in twenty-five hours (17:43 4 Mar 2006 to 18:13 5 Mar 2006). His language hasn't been uncivil, but his discussion of the matter has largely been via edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it has. He's also taken to unilateral reverts of Interstate 605 (California) which had previously been agreed apon to keep the CA routebox, and he knows it too.JohnnyBGood 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he's taken his unilateral crusade to California State Route 283. JohnnyBGood 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Would specific page banning be appropriate here? Or revert limitations for road articles? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Might be nice if you thought about the versions rather than blindly reverting. Anyone who thinks the infobox on California State Route 1 is fine should not be making consensus. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He's right about the infobox, it is horribly mangled. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Quit edit warring. SPUI has a point and you need to find a way to compromise. Specific page banning is ridiculous--these are good faith edits. There's no discussion at Talk:California State Route 283 at all! Chick Bowen 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But there are many discussions- at WT:CASH, Talk:California State Route 15, WP:TFD, Template talk:Routeboxca2, Talk:California State Route 1. In these most uphold the routebox. SPUI is acting against consensus here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete or remove the infobox, so SPUI worked on it. The consensus was for improvements as opposed to deletion. I'm not endorsing his particular improvements--I don't really care. But this is absolutely not a situation for admin intervention--you need to work this out with him and with other concerned editors. I'm sure if you found a way to include SPUI's visual improvements without losing any information that everyone would be fine with that. Look, this is a perfectly banal editing dispute; it has nothing to do with the arbcom ruling regarding SPUI, and you are asked to please stop bothering administrators about a non-administrative issue. Chick Bowen 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are considering that now that we've appeased, that he's moved like 4 other pages as well, starting wars there? All without consensus at WP:NC/NH? Also requesting permission to rollback the moves considering that they were all done without consensus.--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We have a centralized discussion open, have made MANY compromises and he is unyielding. He continues to act unilaterally against consensus with no room or compromise. He's un-Wikipedian.JohnnyBGood 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a Wikipedian his 50k edits are nothing to your 150. It's agreeing with others that makes a Wikipedian, not e.g. WRITING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA - David Gerard 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Having 50k edits doesn't give his opinion any more weight then a user with 2. Not when he's acting against consensus. Who does he think he is George Bush? JohnnyBGood 23:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio insertions in Armenian genocide

Various itierations of an IP keep adding copyvio to this article. ARIN whois for one of the IPs They are all in the same range, and the insertions need to stop. This has been going on since 4:10, and the IP's keep changing yet putting the same copyvio in. Article History. Not sure what needs to be done, but something needs to happen here. Warnings to the first ones have only created new ones. Thanks. pschemp | talk 06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is still going on...it has started up again today. pschemp | talk 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(crossposted to WP:VIP)

Are there no admins who are keeping an eye on this article? Jkelly 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! People really shjould be watching controversial articles, especially if they have no dog in whatever fight it is- Neutral editors monitoring these articles can be an enourmous help.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice at it again

Deeceevoice (on probation) is "shouting" with all caps and font size 20 on Urthogie's talk page. Incivility. [74]

Justforasecond 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's antagonising her. - FrancisTyers 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

One word: WOW.

I think we've all had just about enough of this user. Unbelievably uncivil.Gator (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

She may be being antagonized. Altho, telling someone not to post on your talk page is a pretty trollish thing to do. But, I don't see that this incident requires a response. Friday (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of users who do this; she shouldn't be singled out. Monicasdude 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

She's on probation. Ordinarily she wouldn't be blocked for an instance of incivility. Justforasecond 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

deecee definitely needs a few hours to cool off. Ashibaka tock 18:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Don't be ridiculous; he knows not to provoke her by editing her talk page. El_C 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

ridiculous? What do you call users flipping out over posts like this? Lovable eccentrics adding spice to the community? I think it is more than obvious by now that Deeceevoice is here more for the ego games than for the encyclopedia. dab (ᛏ) 08:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a long history to the dispute, but it's always easy to look only at the isolated situation. The article talk page is the place to go. El_C 08:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A better place to see the entire situation is the Arbitration case, which includes the ArbCom's finding of facts and evidence to give the background. Blanking and ignoring good faith messages on your talk page is poor WikiEtiquette. Then posting allcaps, large font angry messages at the person who did so is outright rude. And blockable, given the history. — Matt Crypto 12:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Good faith? Out of all of the admins on Wikipedia, I consider you the poorest choice for handling the case at this time. El_C 12:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You just can't resist making nasty comments and digs at me every time we come across each other, can you El C? Please stick to the discussion at hand, eh? I'm willing to bury the frickin' hatchet. Move on. — Matt Crypto 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from incivilities and assumptions of bad faith, and do follow your own advise and stay on topic. She obviously feels antagonized by you and the attitude you project. I'm not the only one to raise this issue. Thanks. El_C 12:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying, please can we try and avoid the angry exchanges? I'm willing to avoid slamming you whenever I get the chance. I'm just asking for you to do the same. — Matt Crypto 13:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not angry, nor do I find you slamming me when you get the chance and vice versa. I think you need to be more evenhanded with DCV versus those who upset her. I'm sorry if that comes across as confrontational, considering our history. But I do have a history of with her as an editor and and admin that precedes your own (and also precedes the first time I interacted with you). El_C 13:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

guys? dcv. the case at hand. I tend to think that it is a luxury to keep problem users who need specially trained empathic mentors following their steps to keep them from getting into shouting matches at every corner. WP:ENC and all that. I admire your sympathetic approach, El C, but this user is not on probation for no reason. As long as you can keep her stable, fine, but if she starts jumping at people's throats again, short blocks are in order.

Further request for Arbcom enforcement

User:Anderson12 appears to be a sock puppet of Basil Rathbone who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lightbringer for trolling on Freemasonry, request that the arbcom ruling [[[here] be enforced to stop disruption of the article.ALR 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This dispute is a prime example of "a plauge on both of your houses." You deserve Lightbringer, and he deserves you. Please consider working with editors you disagree with as opposed to agressively edit warring against them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So you'd agree that Anderson12 bears all the characteristics of being Lightbringer then?ALR 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

CU seems to confirm the edit pattern so I've blocked A12 William M. Connolley 11:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep

This administrator has removed an included category from a series of templates (at least 53) with the apparent intention of emptying those categories of the user pages they contained. In doing so for the second time, he reverted the actions of another administrator, User:Guanaco, attempting to correct this out-of-policy edit en masse. He has also engaged in en masse edits of user pages without the owners' consent to subst-ing templates with the apparent intent to delete the templates without anyone knowing. He has already attempted to abuse CSD-C1 by using this very mechanism to empty a category, then list it for speedy deletion as empty.

The behaviour is at least disruptive, as it interferes with intentional large-scale action of other Wikipedians, most of whom do not know their user pages have been dropped from these categories. As the actions are a form of blanking to undo the intent of the hundreds of original participants, it borders on— and perhaps crosses into— vandalism.

Regardless of how certain administrators may feel about userboxes, or those using categories, the above-listed actions are entirely unsuported by policy, and clearly contrary to the express will of a significant part of the community. The clear administrative duty in this case is to restore the status quo ante, and to prevent a repeat.

I ask that the following templates be restored en masse to their previous state, that MarkSweep and any others subsequently found be barred from further such actions by whatever means necessary.

Template:User freemason	Template:User Bayesian	Template:User Elitist	Template:User modelun
Template:User notchav	Template:SAGE-AU	Template:User libertarian socialist	Template:User Deaf
Template:User childless	Template:User RPCV	Template:User Hattrick	Template:User Catan
Template:User sjsu	Template:User Starcraft	Template:User Skidmore	Template:User ITV1
Template:User deviantART	Template:User libertarian socialist2	Template:User utilitarian	Template:User synaesthesia
Template:User AfD	Template:User powerbookg4tiger	Template:User Birthday2	Template:User nocturnal
Template:User MLB-Mets	Template:User marxist	Template:User world	Template:User Social Democrat
Template:User moderate	Template:User Socialist2	Template:User Trot	Template:User green
Template:User liberty	Template:User Confusedbypolitics	Template:User Christian democrat	Template:User conservative
Template:User Anarchosyndicalist	Template:User ownideal	Template:User independent	Template:User Anarchist
Template:User cynic	Template:User Environmentalist	Template:User apolitical	Template:User AI
Template:User America fan	Template:User Economic Liberal	Template:User Communist	Template:User Socialist
Template:User Catholic Worker	Template:User Rate Your Music	Template:User narutofan	Template:User yes.com
Template:User sxe

StrangerInParadise 23:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The above damaged templates were fixed by Guanaco, who was briefly blocked for doing his job. MarkSweep remains blocked, but just before, he managed to damage these templates as well.

Template:User nocturnal	Template:User yes.com	Template:User Rate Your Music
Template:User Chinese reunification	Template:User UN

Will an admin step forward to uphold policy and revert this damage, or has the fear of doing one's job been successfully instilled?

StrangerInParadise 08:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep has struck again, removing categories from these templates,

Template:User creationist	Template:User evolution	Template:User cannabis	Template:User pope
Template:User humanist	Template:User fsm2	Template:User fsm	Template:User spiritual humanist
Template:User eastortho	Template:User lennonist

This has been cleaned up by User:AdamJacobMuller. I ask, how many times does this has to happen before MarkSweep is significatly blocked? Why must non-admins step up to undo the damage of admins?

StrangerInParadise 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Category was also removed from my personal fave, Template:User Bibliophile. *sigh* Her Pegship 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Placing this before anyone else's comments for an obvious reason. User:MarkSweep also blanked Template:user review (which is the one 'User has an account on Wikipedia Review') [75]. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this here? Surely an RfC is warranted? This isn't the proper place to call for someone's head. This braying for blood is distasteful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackensen (talk • contribs) 2006-03-03 19:19:19 (UTC)

I have not called for anyone's head (please no temptations just now). This is an existing situation, with a specific request for action, in the correct venue. I have provided such background as is necessary to understand the context of the situation. But, since you raise the point, the egregious breach of policy here described is highly distasteful. StrangerInParadise 00:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories of Wikipedians by POV are evil and must die. David | Talk 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not evil. Wikipedia user pages are about users. Users are POV. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with these userboxes. File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

David, I am really sick of you saying things like this. Can you please try to be civil and respect that other people actually have differing opinions? THere is no reason to use terms "evil" and "must die" in reference to any discussion on Wikipedia. ... aa:talk 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Please note that neither AN/ ANI are appropriate places for dispute resolution; what are you seeking to gain by this post? If you are seeking other users' input, dispute resolution would be more appropriate. Also note that no one here should simply go reverting back anyone else's contributions now; that would simply escalate this dispute and aggravate the situation. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have asked for specific action, I ask that the following templates be restored en masse to their previous state, that MarkSweep and any others subsequently found be barred from further such actions by whatever means necessary. This is the appropriate venue for this alert, and the request for action is also appropriate- MarkSweep's edits were clearly out-of-order and disruptive. This would require of an admin only a few minutes to correct, but it would require me many, whilst opening me (wrongly) to charges of edit-warring. Isn't this better?

Finally, with respect to Dbiv's comment, I hope he wasn't suggesting that this opinion about categories of Wikipedians should override a clear duty to correct an act of mass disruption. Isn't failing to end disruption of Wikipedia to make a point also a violation of WP:POINT? StrangerInParadise 00:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not WP:POINT. MarkSweep is doing something he thinks should be done; and it may become policy. However, it would be gracious of him (at the least) to abstain from acting any further in this matter. If it really needs to be done, someone else will do it. He is being far more divisive than the userboxes he dislikes have yet been. I would find any redlinks in the table above particularly regrettable. Septentrionalis 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that categories of Wikipedians by POV are fundamentally destructive and so inimical to the concept of Wikipedia that they must die. I do not care which process is used so long as they die. David | Talk 11:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether MarkSweep thinks it should be done is irrelevant, and certainly doesn't separate his acts from any number of disruptive actions- the perpetrators of which all think they "should be done". The speculation- far from certain- that some ban on userboxes will be ratified by the community obviates neither the need to enforce current policy nor the need to respect the community. MarkSweep's acts are certainly WP:POINT, though I was talking about the hypothetical refusal of admins to check and revert his actions. StrangerInParadise 01:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have rolled all of MarkSweep's edits to those templates back. —Guanaco 04:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Guanaco, that was enormously inappropriate. Rollback is for clear cases of vandalism or self-reverts. This kind of mass reversion is hostile and rude to say the least, and not the way to deal with good faith boldness: consensus is. This isn't the first time your misuse of rollback has been brought up. I'm becoming increasingly irritated by your pattern of disruption with regard to userboxes and policies concering them. Let me stress to everyone involved to act slowly and communicate, and always seek consensus. Doing otherwise, especially with the use of admin tools, serves only to inflame the situation, and does us no good. Dmcdevit·t 05:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that they were hostile and rude. Mark's actions could possibly destroy any consensus (we all do remember what this word means, yes?) on the userbox policy we're working so hard to adopt. I'm inclined to pull out of it immediately. Guanaco appears to be trying to "keep the peace" and to force things to go through process. The above description of what happened is accurage. Mark, please, chill out until we reach some kind of agreement. There's no reason to "go nuclear" on things right now. ... aa:talk 06:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't my point at all. Using the administrative rollback in a non-vandalism situation is hostile and uncalled-for. Especially in an attempt to "keep the peace". Dmcdevit·t 06:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a clear case of blanking vandalism: MarkSweep's actions deliberately dismantled mechanisms which disrupted the activities of hundreds of users, against their wishes, for no better reason than he did not approve. This is not to mention his subst-ing campaign on user pages, which effectively sought to hide his attempts to delete the underlying templates. How can you possibly call Guanaco's actions hostile, rude and uncalled-for in the face of MarkSweep's actions?! Guanaco rolled the templates back to the state prior to the disruption. Three months ago, no admin would have thought twice about it. The real question is, Dmcdevit, why didn't you as an admin step up and do the rollback yourself? Are you only an admin to fight destruction you dislike? Would you let blanking stand on articles you happen dislike? This userboxenkampf is showing just how weak administrative commitment to policy has become. StrangerInParadise 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think Guanaco was wrong in using administrative rollback. It was vandalism as blanking, it cannot be said to be in good faith (following the countless RFCs on the matter), and he was wrong to have blanked them. Throwing my voice in support of Guan's actions. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:15 UTC (2006-03-04)

I too agree that Guanaco's reversions were reasonable. The one-click rollback is a handy tool, not a big deal. Undoing someone else's rash, controversial action when you disagree with it is generally OK. Friday (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, hold off on the dramatics for a bit, step back and consider this. Let's just say that Mark Sweep was hugely disruptive and even acting in bad faith. This is a controversial dispute, causing lots of hurt and ill feelings. Now consider the rollback: impersonal, and even implying that the rollbacker has determined bad faith. It seems likely only to further escalate, even if it was a disruptive edit. When a normal revert with an edit summary saying why would have accomplished the same, and not run that risk. I think the use of rollback was ill-considered, and that shouldn't be too controversial to say. I do, by the way, think the 12 hour cool down is probably for the best, for both parties. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I am looking for someone to lift EvilPhoenix's 12-Hour block of Guanaco. I've left a note on his talk page, but he has left a note claiming to be incommunicado, so no one should feel he has to be consulted before lifting the block. This is the second admin for whom I have had to arrange bail, simply because he did his job, see Babajobu's block. StrangerInParadise 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the rush with unblocking? Everyone needs to take a step back and take a breather, regardless of whether one has done "right" or "wrong" here. Actions which are generating pages and pages of text mean that there is something not adequately addressed. Maybe it's about time we took some time aside to think and listen. --HappyCamper 07:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rush with unblocking? The rush was the blocking in the first place; undoing it is not unreasonable. We can discuss this like civilized editors without having to resort to blocks. I have unblocked. Friday (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There was no need for the block(s) in the first place - it just made a tense situation worse. I support the unblock. On the other hand, MarkSweep's block, IMO, was rightly applied (although for the wrong reason, reason given was edit warring), and should be left in place. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:39 UTC (2006-03-04)

Well, I didn't have the context comment really. If that's what its best, then let it be. --HappyCamper 07:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase, this is disgraceful. Somewhere along the line, a lot of Wikipedians lost their respect for collaboration and each other. I said before, to no avail: "Let me stress to everyone involved to act slowly and communicate, and always seek consensus. Doing otherwise, especially with the use of admin tools, serves only to inflame the situation, and does us no good." If we have learned anything from the pedophila wheel war, it's use caution, communicate, and find consensus, especially when reversing another admin's action. That goes for both Mark Sweep and Guanaco, and Friday and Evilphoenix and NSLE as well. We make people admins for a reason, and give them discretion in situations like this to exercise that power. There is no excuse for not discussing a reversal beforehand. Everybody needs to slow down and Discuss. And take your fingers off those buttons. All of these actions are displays of disrespect toward other administrators. Please keep WP:AGF in mind at all times, and never forget the goodness of a real personal message to a talk page, or even a request for mediation, in place of an incident report. This has nothing to do with the individual merits of any of the admin actions, but for crying out loud, discuss it first. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If undoing a wrongful block is disgraceful, I'll take disgrace. I don't see that I have disrespected anyone. I'm all in favor of slowing down and discussing, I just feel that Guanaco shouldn't be locked out of that disscussion. Friday (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We are beyond that, Dmcdevit. Either policy is to be upheld, or not. How can you pretend that admins upholding policy are somehow on the same level with the vandals they are fighting, and those who support them? This was not a legitimate use of discretion by MarkSweep (mass blanking) or Evilphoenix (blocking and refusing communication). You do great harm by pretending there are two equal sides to this conflict— that is disgraceful. StrangerInParadise 08:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call editors in good standing vandals. You've done that twice in this section. Whatever the merits of this incident (and I respect all the opinions above) that's a personal attack and not civil. There's just no need for it, it just makes things worse. Rx StrangeLove 16:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, MarkSweep was not in good standing at the time of my comment, he was blocked for mass blanking. Explain to me how mass blanking out-of-policy is not vandalism. StrangerInParadise 17:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I warned all of you about Guanaco when his latest RfA came up that he is a loose cannon, but you wouldn't listen to me, and this is the result. Guanaco has lost his adminship once before, he should not have been trusted with the keys again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A little bit late to the discussion here, but I'd like to echo Dmcdevit's words that we act with prudence, caution, and with great respect for one another. Remember that we all are humans; we're all volunteers; we're all dedicated to this great project. If we should choose to act, act with the greatest assumption of good faith for each other, with the most civility as possible, and with the most wisdom as possible. I'm not going to comment on this specific situation (as I haven't reviewed everything fully), but I would like to point out that mass revertings of anything but blatant, clear-cut vandalism without general support usually does nothing but aggravate the situation further. Discussion never hurts, as communication is vital. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I blocked because I saw an edit war in progress. If Guanaco was in the right and had consensus behind him, he should have asked someone else to make the reversion, intead of getting involved in an edit war. Edit warring = bad. 2. My Talk page message that was referred to was unclear. My apologies. I'm not refusing to communicate, I just happened to go to bed right after the block and therefore wasn't available to discuss it. 2a. But I'm also not watching AN/I. I refuse to. I'm disgusted lately. I came here because I involved myself in this one, so I felt I should at least see what was said. 3. Here's what I think a wheel war is: If an Admin A takes an Administrative action, Admin B reverts it, and Admin A undoes the reversion. A->B->A. If an Admin simply undoes another Admin's actions, I don't think that is itself a Wheel War. It's polite not to undo something without discussing it, or at least attempting to, but let's please all remember that Admins can revert each other for a reason. What courtesy dictates that we do is to not revert if we're reverted...If someone undoes my Admin action, it's wrong of me to re-do my action, and I have a real problem with anyone who does that. That is a wheel war, and that is what we need to be fighting against. But I don't think it's a wheel war if someone simply undoes a block or a protection or whatever. I don't think it's a wheel war if Admin A blocks, B unblocks, C blocks, and D unblocks. That's not a good situation, but it's not a wheel war. It's when you get into not respecting your fellow Admins enough to re-do something you've been reverted on that we get into problems. Wheel warring = bad. 4. We all need to remember the things that are important and worth fighting for. NPOV. Verifiability. Accuracy. Consensus. Avoiding edit wars...realizing that sometimes, your edits will get reverted, right or wrong, and sometimes, your Admin actions will get reverted, right or wrong, and that's ok. What's not ok is stubbornly insisting on your edit choice without deliberation, or stubbornly insisting on your Admin actions if you're reverted. I hope this makes sense y'all, because this is getting insane. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed, and no consensus has been reached. MarkSweep clearly is not interested in consensus. I assumed good faith at first, but that assumption becomes increasingly difficult to maintain as he makes blatantly destructive edits and refuses to respond to complaints and RFCs.

This was not a wheel war; I would have reverted his edits manually if necessary. —Guanaco 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire situation is ridiculious this is quite frankly, as I have already mentioned on Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll, based on the names and types of templates that are being removed (subst'ed) from my page that there is a clear bias going on against certian types of viewpoints. This is clearly censorship. I would like to congragulate Guan and every other wikipedia adminstrator who is taking the time to defend the community against such attacks. I should not have to wake up in the morning and find out that my userpage was vandalized, yes, i'm calling it vandalisim, by anyone, let alone find out that it was valdalized by an administrator, that's absolutely ridiculious and in my mind is grounds for Deadminship AdamJacobMuller 11:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

...of the use of userboxes and user categories in an attempt to influence a discussion can be found here, if anyone is curious. —Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that. The irony is delicious. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not a discussion, but a Wikipedia-wide poll. See WP:AN/I#At long last, Stranger is free to reply to his many detractors. StrangerInParadise 06:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

please ban user Ktothethirdpower

User:Ktothethirdpower threatened to kill User:WAvegetarian [76]. I noticed this a few hours ago and warned Ktothethirdpower, but WAvegetarian pointed out to me that I should have done more. I apologize, and I'm trying to do the right thing now. I hope this is the right place to post this. --Allen 02:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Could have done it on the username alone, but the trolling and death threats were all the more reason. android79 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but I beat you to it [77] :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you didn't hang the tag on his user page. Doesn't count! Neener! :oP android79 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And I always remember to do that! Damn! :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah death threats are not exactly kosher. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Umph

I'm getting quite concerned about Umph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He shows no regard for our copyright policy, and has been brazen and incivil in flaunting it. At one point he reuploaded a deleted image (Image:Dave.jpg--I've now deleted it again) with the edit summary 1993 press photo from "Cryptic and OprhanBot are gay pussies with no life whatsoever" fest. I've left him the sternest of warnings. Would others mind helping me go through his upload log and take appropriate action? A lot of this is recreation of deleted content and can be speedied. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a very long or indefinite ban is probably in order for this user. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't blocked him yet. I'd like to see how he responds, if at all, to my most recent request for sources. However, if others would rather not wait and see I quite understand. Chick Bowen 05:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I'm having trouble with Lizards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Umph. He's uploading the same images Umph uploaded with the same summaries (and still no sources). He left a nasty message on my talk page about an article from WP:CP I deleted, but that is of little concern to me. I've speedied the images as G-4, and I've blocked Lizard for 24 hours. Review and advice from other admins would be welcomed. Chick Bowen 06:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And we can add Nomoretears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this list as well. All three are behaving in exactly the same manner and uploading the same images with the same filenames. See the history of Trey Anastasio. Chick Bowen 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now blocked Nomoretears indefinitely. The user's response to my request to put sources on images was to upload the same image with the summary "Chick Bowen is a loser piece of shit press photo." Chick Bowen 21:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked Umph indefinitely as well, for uploading the same image, again with no source, with a summary containing a comment about my mother. Chick Bowen 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a sock check on these users? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Welovedourdaughterbutshewasevil

Vandal account (please see contribs), offensive username. (If this is the wrong place to report this, please drop me a note on my talk page.) Thanks. Justin Eiler 04:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked: 03:28, March 4, 2006 InShaneee blocked "Welovedourdaughterbutshewasevil (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)

Replaced with: 06:40, March 4, 2006 Essjay blocked "Welovedourdaughterbutshewasevil (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}}) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the block just fine, but by what rationale was the username offensive? It's just a movie quote, as far as I know. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppets

Copied from above section for the ease of casual readers--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

New sockpuppet: History Repeats (talk · contribs). Based on this edit at Declaration of Independence (United States) which is identical to this edit by his previous sockpuppet Cheese Curd and others. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not a sockpuppet. --History Repeats 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• New sockpuppets:
  • Intellibot (talk · contribs), based on this edit restoring talk posts by previous sockpuppets.
  • Gay Cowboys Unite! (talk · contribs). Nonsense posts to Talk:Terrorism. User name probably a play on words of previous sockpuppet User:Go Cowboys. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

History Repeats knows what a sockpuppet is [78], despite claiming not to be one. I'm not going to block them all just yet, I'm thinking.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt about Intellibot and History Repeats. The Cowboys one could just be some random vandal, but it seems likely that it's him too. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Another one: Phallus Man (talk · contribs). This guy is something else... --JW1805 (Talk) 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• All blocked, edits reverted, pages deleted, etc.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

James W. Walter

Jimmywalter (talk · contribs), who claims to be the same person as in the Wiki article James W. Walter, is edit warring over the article in question. He has alluded to a libel lawsuit here...[79] over what he claims is misinformation on his page. I recuse myself from becoming more involved than to report the incident which was reported to my talk page...[80] by Isopropyl (talk · contribs).--MONGO 08:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely for legal threats; if he wants to make a claim of libel, he needs to do so by contacting the Foundation, not by posting to the article. Once an individual has made threats of legal action, it is no longer advisable to allow them to further complicate the situation by continuing to edit here. WP:NLT. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy up the page a little, and I've made the Jenna Orkin link and quote invisible (which is the quote Walter is objecting to) in part because I couldn't find that actual quote in the article she wrote, but also because it's not clear that, as the parent of a 9/11 victim, she would count as a reliable published third-party source within the terms of WP:V. It would be fine to use her as a source about herself and her own 9/11 movement, but probably not okay to use her as a source about a third party, especially when the comments are somewhat disparaging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, appreciate it...I posted a long comment and it was moved to Jimmywater's talk page, so I didn't want to block him...just thought I'd bring it here and let a neutral party handle it. Thanks for the article cleanup...no reason to give him any ammo.--MONGO 09:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Walter's anonymous IP 68.166.232.48 (talk · contribs) for continuing to add legal threats to James W. Walter. That IP also continued to paste Walter's resume into the article and turned it into a glowing autobiography. Oddly, the Jenna Orkin quote which Walter believe is libel was removed from the article, but Walter replaced the quote himself along with his legal threat. Rhobite 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job...I missed that one.--MONGO 11:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:JJthecool9

Something's gotta be done about this one. Warned for blatant vandalism (keeps inserting spaces in the middle of words) I blocked him for 24 hours. But in my opinion probably all most his contributions are vandalism. He keeps inserting sloppy writing and outright hoaxes into Wikipedia. Often as their own articles. I guess I can't prove that's vandalism and that might be a personal dispute, opinion, but I'd like to know what others think. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Romanian / Anti-semitism/ nazism propaganda

wikipedia's policy against Anti-Romanian edits

There are several users that have made many acts considered as Anti-Romanian...I need your support to ban them for good from here. --Stefan cel Mare 16:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging from your userpage, I think you'd benefit from a change of perspective. Consider editing articles unrelated to Romania/Romanian issues for a few days. - FrancisTyers 16:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I will see about it, thanks. I want to receive also other feedback opinions from you. Stefan cel Mare 16:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This user is an obvious sockpuppet of someone - either indefinitely blocked Bonaparte (talk · contribs · block log) or someone impersonating him. --Latinus 16:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, almost all of his 'contributions' are to his, to coin a phrase, divise and inflammatory, or possibly even polemical userpage. If you don't plan to write useful articles in the project, Stefan cel Mare, you should find a website that is actually interested in your personal beliefs, because you've come to the wrong one. -Splash^talk 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Stefan cel Mare is Romanian for Stephen the Great. - FrancisTyers 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Mark Breeder (talk · contribs). Based on this edit and this edit restoring material by previous sockpuppets. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Howardjp

Howardjp (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) doesn't often bother with edit summaries, but when he does he has a tendency to use them to make acerbic or insulting, albeit sometimes obscure, comments (for example, "you know, it says this right there", "They shouldn't give you a degree if you cannot even spell its name correctly (this is even worse than the others since you had it in front of you)", "do you ever feel like you are fixing the same idiotic mistakes again and again?", etc. I left a message on his Talk page asking him not to do this, but he immediately removed it, and left another couple of edit summaries of theis type. I have a history of conflict with him, so perhaps another admin could point out to him that he should both use edit summaries more routinely and stop using them to attack other editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:205.188.117.71

I just discovered this user's edit to Patrice Lumumba (17:05, October 1, 2005 205.188.117.71) to be blatantly lifted from a New African article from 2000. It is the entire section called 'Independence Day: "Tears, Fire, and Blood" Speech'.

Lumumba: 'We shall show the world what the black man can do when he is allowed to work in freedom' Osei Boateng. New African. London: Feb 2000., Iss. 382; pg. 22, 4 pgs

This IP address' user page details many past violations, including more plagiarism, page blanking, vandalism, etc. I would advise that this address be blocked except for the fact that it is one of those shady multi-user AOL deals. When will people be required to register to edit?

Thanks, --BadLeprechaun 17:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably never. Wikipedia is still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Requiring people to register doesn't do anything to prevent plagiarism. On the other hand, I'm starting to think that AOL proxy IPs should be blocked. I've heard that there's a way for AOL users to get a unique non-proxy IP address - if that's true, we should require the users to do that.

I removed the plagiarized content from Patrice Lumumba. Thanks for pointing it out. Rhobite 18:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the 172 range is the unique non-proxy IP addresses from AOL and I use it, its better of not give much detail about that range as vandals could use it also. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jooler and Peerage articles

Howdy! While on newpage patrol, I stumbled across Viscount Ranelagh. At the time, it contained only three names, each a red link. I deleted it under A1 and heard from Jooler right away. Please see the conversation at: User_talk:Chairboy#Viscount_Ranelagh

I'd like a couple things. First, a sanity check on my actions (was I a dick?), and second, a brief discussion about peerage articles. Do we really have flocks of essentially empty articles filled with nothing but red-links, and is that really kosher? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The version that exists now is quite good. The version that you deleted was bloody worthless. Jooler is way out of line with his attitude, assumption of bad faith, and general nastiness, and needs to go sit in the corner. --Golbez 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the notability of an individual title is asserted in two ways: inclusion within a larger project, and because the notability of peers is asserted on the ground that they were members of a sovereign legislature. Jooler could have behaved better, but deleting this kind of article after five minutes, when its creator is an established editor isn't particularly friendly action. It would have been a good faith action on your part to communicate with him first. Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone is an established editor, they should know what constitues a proper article- A list of three internal links to articles that don't exist is not a proper article, it has no context. Chairboy did nothing wrong whatsoever.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Beg differ. Not everyone does the whole thing on the first edit. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? There's clearly an article to be written here. I fail to see the need for hasty action in this case.

<edit conflict> - Chairboy - answers - yes and yes. Golbez - "The version that you deleted was bloody worthless" - that version was a single edit and it was deleted less than 5 minutes after it was created. The rest of the information was being collated at the time that it was deleted. I apologise for my tone to Chairboy, but his action was out line line, if only for ignorance. As a long established editor, I don't like to be patronised and talked to as if I just stumbled across this site yesterday. <added later>. Sean I do not read Wikipedia policy documents for fun but I seem to recollect that there is some rule of thumb about allowing articles to develop before deleting them out of hand, and I don't seem to recall any ruling that says that an article should be created in a single edit. Thank you. Additionally the "claim" of "no context" is pure rot. The title of the article is Viscount Ranelagh and I listed three people who held that title, while I went off to research the rest of it. This bears no relation to the example on WP:CSD on A1 and clearly it DOES confirm to the part which says Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. A search engine may help in determining context and allow for the article's expansion.. Clearly Chairboy did not follow the advice. Jooler 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on. It didn't even have a sentence explaining the significance to the article's title. There's no excuse for not writing something (anything! One sentence would suffice) explaining what the article is about. That's the definition of "no context".--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the article because of a red link on Earl of Ranelagh. At the point that I made that single edit, I had not discovered when the title was created and in which of the Peerages of the United Kingdom it existed and so I did not put a header on the page. If you care to google it you will discover that there is no single reliable source for this specific of information, and I had to go off and research it. What was the article about? it was about the title and the people who held it, like every other peerage page, it is self-evident. Jooler 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"That version was a single edit and it was deleted less than 5 minutes after it was created." I might be alone here, but I prefer that the first edit be self-sustainable. I don't know if I've ever created a CSD-worthy stub. Telling people "Just wait 10 more minutes for my next edit!" doesn't work for me - spend that extra ten minutes on the article before you click "submit". If you can't be bothered to do that, why should we be bothered to wait? Now, personally, I would have probably let it sit in a tab and come back to it a few minutes later to see if it had matured, and if not, then I would have probably deleted it. The title alone does not generate context. This might just be me, but to quote the Soup Nazi, I expect perfection of myself, why should I expect less of others? :) --Golbez 21:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not alone, but as I noted above, not everyone does everything in the first edit. There's no need to delete something like this quickly. It's not doing any harm, has the potential to establish context, and did so quite quickly. Sometimes I think we're too quick on the trigger with CSD. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I think we're too quick to accuse others of being in the wrong when we could have fixed the problem ourselves with ten second's work.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder... if I had not made links but had just listed the peers without a link would Chairboy have deleted it as speedily. Jooler 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably- That's just as little context, if not less.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If I'd known about the problem I'd have dealt with it? How am I to know of a stub needing attention when it gets speedied five minutes after creation? I think a better solution might have been listing it on WP:PROD. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed a simple assumption of good faith and a quick Google (as per WP:CSD) would have shown that the article had potential. I might also argue that the incident has been an education for Chairboy as to the significance of the peerage. These people ruled us Britons, politically an economically. Jooler 21:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Us" is the key word here. There's no way someone who doesn't know as much about the peerage as you do could at all comprehend the article.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's okay to delete something because you know nothing about it? Okay of course it isn't and it isn't what you meant. British history is part of your history aswell. There is no way I go think it right to delete a stubby list of Governors of Hawaii because it was a load of red links (check the dates of the links). Jooler 21:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that has a sentence explaining what the article is. That's context. Your's didn't have anything of the sort, and therefore wouldn't make any sort of sense to those who don't have a detailed knowledge of the peerage.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"wouldn't make any sort of sense to those who don't have a detailed knowledge of the peerage" - and should therefore be deleted!? because of the administrator's ignorance of his own history - perhaps that is what you are saying! In any case - Sentence what sentence? I see nothing more than a repetition of the title of the article and "since statehood" - so you say perhaps that if I had put "Since creation" and repeated "Viscount Ranelagh" - I would have been safe? Because that would have "given context". Am I correct? <added later> - BTW you are looking at the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Governors_of_Hawaii&oldid=1183636 rather than the current version arn't you? Jooler 22:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Horrible little list, but at least Hawaii is linked. --Golbez 02:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu drunk

There's an incident that I must report. On this lovely Irish evening the 5th of March Babajobu was unbelievably drunk. Please monitor. Babajobu 01:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu is not so drunk that he can't post without typos, so no ambulance, SWAT team, or FEMA intervention seems necessary. However, it might be advisable to refrain from driving until the effects wear off. Have fun! Zora 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There's an incident that I must report. On this lovely Irish evening the 5th of March Babajobu was unbelievably inevitably drunk. Please monitor.

• FIXED! —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 06:37Z

User:Danmeister

Danmeister posts prolifically on various anime-related articles and Talk:Main Page in the form of orders that people MUST write about certain fictional junk for him, with lots of exclamation points. If you read these messages, it seems that they aren't even addressed to Wikipedians -- they're addressed to fictional characters. Danmeister doesn't just not understand what Wikipedia is, he seems to not understand what the real world is.

He pays no attention to messages left on his talk page, or the fact that his messages get reverted for being off-topic. Is it appropriate for him to be blocked for spamming talk pages with off-topic messages? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that makes me sad. He's probably just an enthusiastic kid who doesn't quite understand what's going on here. Oh well. If someone else wants to block him, I woulnd't object, but I don't want to do it myself.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. Clearly someone who shouldn't be here, but how the hell do you explain it to them? Being a fan of the games whose pages he frequents, he also wants false info added, so... damn, I dunno. Maybe block him and hope he just goes away? :P --Golbez 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for an hour. Maybe this will get him to slow down and read his talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise spambot spamming userpages

I've just blocked this user 31 hours for, as the block message puts it: "Personal attack spamming on userpages (apparently bot-assisted)". This [81] is a good example. He's been cranking these out at a steady pace. Mindspillage tried cluifying him [82], but it appears to have been clues to the clueless - he responded and kept going, somewhere past thirty or forty. I recall IZAK was strongly rapped by the AC for hitting ten or so userpages, and not even with personal attacks ... this sort of partisan spam attack is exactly why many people regard userboxes as blatant encouragement to factionalist attacks of this sort. And why they deserve immediate attention. Anyone severely upset by this block? - David Gerard 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Using Assisted-AutoBrowsers and what not for this use is dispicable.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As mindspillage says: "Vote stacking. It's not good. This is the reason people are against userboxes in the first place. It's just not on to go rally people you think will support you and urge them to sway a discussion a certain way." (the emphasis by bolding is mindspillage's own)

Let's stop this now. It must be killed, dealt a blow from which it will never recover. We need a solid ruling from the arbitration committee against all vote stacking. Otherwise, I just cannot see our principles of making decisions on policy by consensus surviving. We cannot have decisions by consensus if some editors feel free to subvert every attempt to determine that consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The vote-stacking part of this is bad, of course, but it isn't the only concern. Would his actions have been any less reprehensible if he hadn't mentioned the ongoing policy discussions in his message? —Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What amazes me is the lack of comprehension that spamming is bad. Doesn't he have email? - David Gerard 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

He probably thinks it's acceptable if it's for a good cause. There are a number of people who have spammed various people with messages that essentially boil down to "DOWN WITH THE ADMIN CABAL!" recently; maybe we should just go ahead and create Wikipedia:No revolutions, to discourage such things. —Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

He claims on his talk page that he did not use a bot. He does appear to have been using cut'n'paste or subst:ing a custom template. Not that I care deeply - it's odious behaviour and you will see from his talk page that he's utterly unrepentant. I noted that IZAK got ten days' ban for spamming talk pages with personal attacks, which suggests that 31 hours is so short as to be out of process; presumably StrangerInParadise should have the option of the longer penalty if he prefers - David Gerard 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to do this sort of thing just using Firefox with a large number of open tabs. —Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Or javascript tabs.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done something similar doing cleanups of double redirects in article space without a bot handy ;-) - David Gerard 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony people have been trying stop this now for quite a while. The only result is anger and the ocassional counter strike. It isn't a time for action any more. It is a time for talk. For negotation. The reasonable people on the various sides need to come to an argreement and freeze out the unreasonable ones. This is of course going to take time. However the is no other option that has any chance of working in the long term.Geni 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I entirely support the block and agree with David Gerard that it's a relatively lenient one in all the circumstances. However it is in some ways fortunate that StrangerInParadise has come along to demonstrate exactly why Categories of Wikipedians by POV are wrong at just the point that it comes under discussion. For myself I would say that I would have much less hostile feelings toward Userboxes in general if none of them had included categories. Whatever process is used, we need to have a resolution of the Userbox problem which reminds everyone that Wikipedians are supposed to leave their POV behind, and Categories by POV are so far away from that that I really can't see why anyone can defend them. David | Talk 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Butting in here, I just want to note that, as far as I can determine, every proposed userbox policy, old and new, has included language to the effect that double categorization (by templates and categories) is unnecessary. I believe it's not far fetched to say that there already is a consensus for the position that, no matter what one may think about templatized userboxes, the inclusion of categories is at best redundant. Until SIP came along, nobody seemed to particularly mind the removal of categories from templatized userboxes. In the present case, insisting on having an advocacy category as part of an advocacy template is especially wrong. The usual disclaimers about "disclosing biases" etc. don't apply: the "pro-cannabis" template and category are advocacy for a cause that is completely external to Wikipedia (and the same would hold for a hypothetical "anti-cannabis" category, in case that wasn't obvious). The point is that no amount of editing Wikipedia can effect the changes advocated by the people who sign on to this template/category. As such, the advocacy is purely external, as opposed to Wikipedia-related advocacy (e.g. "school articles should be improved not deleted"). The way SIP went about this makes me question his motives and wonder whether a longer block (say, for the duration of UPP) may be more appropriate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's becoming clear that internal WikiPolitical categorizations are an even greater problem that external political ones. —Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I fear you may be right. David | Talk 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians has been around forever and even killing the more recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion is probably more trouble than it is worth.Geni 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, that particular group is rather less confrontational that some of what we've been seeing lately. —Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not a problem until it's a problem. Userboxes weren't a problem until (1) the Association of Catholic Wikipedians (2) the idiots who tried to vote copyright violations into force in userboxes in the face of Kelly Martin foolishly doing the sensible, legal and on-policy thing. When it is a problem, then treat it as a problem - David Gerard 02:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall much (other than complaining) being done about school watch back in the day. The on policy thing would have been to remove the images and leave the boxes. Unfortunetly Kelly Martin chose not to do this. A lot of stuff later here we are. No you can either try and continue the conflict or you can let people talk things out.Geni 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This example seems on the face of it disingenuous - as you know, Schoolwatch actually did lots of work on improving articles in the face of people who wanted to delete almost all school articles. That is, it was directly for the encyclopedia - David Gerard 12:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Schoolwatch fits in. It wasn't an organization, just a regularly updated wiki page. All Wikipedians were free to edit it and anyone could add the page to his watchlist. There was no spamming of user talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. The sensible and on-policy thing would have been to remove the images and leave the boxes themselves alone. (And I'm not at all convinced that this is a "legal" issue - I'm not aware of any cases where anyone has even been sent a C&D letter, much less actually sued, for using fair use images in this way. It's simply a matter of Foundation policy. No need for m:Copyright paranoia.) And I also don't see why every user on Wikipedia should have to pay for the sins of the "Association of Catholic Wikipedians". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have written up an idea that would take us out of the userbox wars while removing the ability to vote stack. I think this could make people on both sides of the userbox debate happy without resorting to any more mass deletions. Please tell if this would be possible. Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Technical_Solution.--God Ω War 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it mentioned here, so I'll just note that Babajobu unblocked at 01:22, 5 March 2006. Rx StrangeLove 06:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversation with StrangerInParadise in IRC led me to believe that he does not see why his actions were inappropriate and that he would continue them, reducing the issue to the oversimplified "why can I not contact a list of people?" and not acknowledging his actions were any more than that. The thought that this is acceptable practice is more harmful than the placement or removal of any silly colored boxes. As such, if StrangerInParadise doesn't realize how his actions were harmful and plans to continue then, I'm fine with the block, and would like to know why Babajobu believes it should be undone; I'm inviting him to this thread. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to this: after a long conversation with SiP in private message, he's agreed that the mass of dissent this is attracted is cause to question his actions. He's also taken issue with my statement that I believed he would continue. I'll accept that he was done with that round of notifications, and in light of the reaction to it would seek clarification before undertaking other such actions, but I'm still not quite convinced he sees why I and others believe this was so wrong. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as you were writing this I put the block back on for 12 hours, I thinks it's a basic courtesy to make a note of it when someone reverts an action when there's an ongoing discussion. There seems to be a decent consensus for this block here. Rx StrangeLove 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I want to expand a little why I re-blocked, when Babajobu unblocked he mentioned in the summary that the block needed a discussion, but he didn't discuss or mention the unblock anywhere. I wouldn't have done this if he had said something here, on Davids page or even on StrangerInParadise's talk page. But I don't think it's right to do it and then not mention it to anyone. Rx StrangeLove 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted three of this user's subpages, as they were only used to stack votes by spamming user talk pages. Note that the user encouraged other users to do the same using these user templates^[83]. The pages in question are {{User:StrangerInParadise/PCI}}, {{User:StrangerInParadise/AbstainerMsg}}, and {{User:StrangerInParadise/VNOUPP}}. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF. That's an unrepentant spammer. When the block comes off, I hope admins will be watching this user extremely closely - David Gerard 13:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

hmm did we ever get an outright apology from Ram-Man? Should we be watching him to?Geni 15:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to apologize for unblocking Stranger last night without discussing it first. In fact, I wasn't even aware of this discussion, but my normal M.O. when I disagree with a block is to query the blocking admin (in this case David Gerard) rather than just unilaterally lifting the block. What I did was in very bad form. I had an overly pleasant Saturday evening out in Dublin with some friends, returned home on the Luas and then made the egregious error of WWD--Wikiing While Drunk. First time in over 7000 edits that I've done that, and it shan't happen again! After revisiting the issue, I must agree that Stranger's spamming of talkpages (though AWB isn't a bot, each post is still submitted by the editor) with uncivil vote jockeying was very much inappropriate, and that because an initial effort to discuss it with him didn't meet with any success, a short block was not inappropriate. I do think, though, that 31 hours was far too long, given that there are what I consider to be very real mitigating circumstances. Users like Stranger are being relentlessly provoked and antagonized by admins who continue to implement the proposed template and category space policy while the poll is still ongoing. I support the new userbox policy, and will implement it if it is passed. But it makes a mockery of the entire process, and is a slap in the face of those users who are participating in the poll in good faith, to go on ad hoc deletion binges while mocking the concerns of affected users, all while we are supposedly still going through the process of developing a protocol about how these issues should be handled. As a wise man has said, "admins wield a mop, not a sceptre". When we act as though we wield a sceptre, it shouldn't surprise us when an irritated user starts spamming about rogue admins and attempts to "rally the newbs" against us. Anyway, again, apologies for my rash and undiscussed unblocking last night, I should have raised these issues with you rather than lifting the block. Babajobu 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that you think administrators should sit on their hands until a new written policy is formed? Sorry, doesn't wash. Wikipedia doesn't have a written policy on a lot of matters, but administrators will take action to defend the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What I think is that the ad hoc deletion binges are sowing enormous resentment among ordinary users, and are controversial even among admins, many of whom (myself included) believe that these deletions have done more to distract the community from its task of encyclopedia-building than the existence of the userboxen ever did. Moreover, Jimbo has explicitly stated that his words should not be interpreted as support for these sorts of deletions. I've never doubted for a second that admins who continue to delete the userboxen are doing so because they genuinely believe that they are acting in the best interests in Wikipeda, but not only do I disagree with them, I also think they are exercising a degree of authority that no one has ever given them. I think they have made adminship an *enormous* deal, have chomped down on tons of newbies, have fomented a pointless and unnecessary wiki-class-war, and accomplished very little else in the process. That's how I see it, obviously I know you disagree. But why not just wait until the new policy is established, when the same thing can be accomplished with considerably less controversy? Babajobu 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what? Grossly non-encyclopedic categories in userboxes have been considered a bad thing since they first showed up. And notably, Mark (and others) has been removing such categories from userboxes for the last while now (particularly since the Catholic Alliance thing showed they were susceptible to gross abuse) with no objections whatsoever ... until SIP decided it was a great case with which to demonstrate just why such categories are a serious problem. Are you seriously saying Mark should have been continuously checking just in case someone had written a poll on a heretofore uncontroversially-accepted action? That really doesn't seem reasonable or workable. The problem here is not that Mark was deleting odious categories that were accepted to be a bad thing, but that a user then objected to the removal of an odious category by acting in a further odious manner - David Gerard 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying he shouldn't go on deletion binges of categories and templates that as yet meet no criterion for speedy deletion, and then wheel-war over those deletions. If you think his doing so is fabulous for Wikipedia, we'll just have to disagree. I think we'd all be better off if he spent that time working on articles. Babajobu 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is that the new proposed userbox policy is slowly losing any consensus it once might have had and editors are pushing to have T1 removed and probably will do so over the next day or so as there hasn't been much opposition to it's removal. We'll be left with no real userbox policy at that point. Rx StrangeLove 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. There will still be the wikiproject's standards and the copyvio rules.Geni 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an operational consensus for the new proposed policy, and that it or something similar will likely be declared our site policy before long. Straw polls are useful, but they're not definitive, and we can make allowances for the preponderance of oppose votes by editors who were alerted through the Anti-censorship WikiProject and those who were alerted through talk page spamming. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What I also find very disruptive was the mass reversion of people's talk pages who did get this message. I got the message, and, well I have quite a few userboxes. Alot of them have been subst'ed via Pathoschilds list, which I think is a nice thing, but I also voted against the overall policy. But that is not what this is for. I agree, there could have been a better way of going about telling users about the new Userboxen policy vote, but it was effective. Mass spamming is bad, but so is mass reversion. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As the talk page spamming was directed exclusively at those who possessed userboxes, it could never be effective in alerting people about the poll. A small minority of Wikipedians have any userboxes at all; an even smaller minority have userboxes that would be affected by this poll. Alerting only a selected subsection of Wikipedians on a site-wide policy is de facto vote rigging. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends. Alterting those most likely to be affected is logical justifable.Geni 23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For a system-wide policy? Uh uh: vote-stacking is vote-stacking. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't system wide. The new policy wont effect me in any way shape or form (unless Template:Userpage is declared a userbox). No userbox policy can or ever will.Geni 23:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought this policy applied to Wikipedia, being, you know, policy. And since StrangerInParadise himself calls it a "Wikipedia-wide poll", he's undercut your defense of him. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how it applies to the article namespace. The rest of your edit is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.Geni 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit like asking that notices about a policy forbidding smoking in elevators should be preferentially directed towards people who are likely to smoke in elevators, with the intention of ensuring that they would comprise a disproportionate number of those peple voting on the new policy? This is a system-wide policy in that it would affect you and me as much as anyone else--to observe that we don't want to do what would be covered by the policy is fatuous. Of course we don't! But some people do, and that is why a policy is needed. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The alturnative is generaly refured to as the tyrany of the majority. Whatever is decided on needs some level of acceptance amoung the userbox users as well as the non userbox users. It looks like more talk is needed. If people would stop trying to finsh things by dramatic gestures in the meantime it would be much apeatated.Geni 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

At long last, Stranger is free to reply to his many detractors

I did intentionally place a notice urging an Oppose vote on WP:UPP on the talk pages of 43 United Nations Wikipedians, and intended do 12 more (completing Wikipedians S through Z), and call it a day. Apart from knowing them to have been subject to MarkSweep's mass blanking and category depopulation efforts, I had no personal connection that I can recollect with those 43 contacted.

I intended to be partisan, and although I felt a strict obligation to be accurate, I did not consider myself any more obliged to present both sides of this discussion than those who go about declaring Userboxes are evil in official proceedings. Therein, I characterized certain acts as those of a rogue admin, as I believe that to be an accurate description of a mass blanking campaign using admin tools to disrupt an established Wikipedia process of categorizing Wikipedians by perspective, as well as to thereby depopulate categories so as speciously to qualify them for CSD-C1 (empty). My note did not constitute a personal attack, but did reference the specific reprehensible acts of identifiable persons.

I was unaware of either any policy prohibiting this, or the degree of outrage on principle this act would provoke. I was unfamiliar with the ArbCom ruling cited, and do not see that it would necessarily apply to a Wikipedia-wide poll. I did not at any time receive notice that my actions were prohibited, though I was paused in discussions with Mindspillage over her express concerns about them at the time I was blocked. The reader should note that this is the first time in five years at Wikipedia that I have been blocked for anything.

As to charges of vote-stacking, it remains unclear to me how one can stack a vote in a Wikipedia-wide poll. As Avriette has pointed out, this is somewhat counter-intuitive. To DavidGerard's comment that my acquaintance with email should have clarified for me how this is odious spam, I would point out that (outside of the peculiar world of Wikipedia) spam is an unwanted message undesired by and of no relevance to the recipient. In DR's own experience of email, how often does spam receive positive action and thank you notes?

Contrary to statements by Mindspillage and others above, I did not at any time indicate that I would continue to place notices if told it was prohibited. I was unblocked by Babajobu within minutes of my block- and correctly, as there was no prior notice and the allegation of a spambot was patently false. Reblocking was unnecessary, and only allowed the above unfounded criticisms to go unanswered. My intention was- and is- to seek clarification on what appears to be an undocumented region of policy about which several Wikipedians nevertheless have strong feelings.

As previously discussed, I placed the notices by hand, using a subst'd page from my userspace. This and two others personal pages have been deleted, without sanction by policy. Though recreating them would be trivial, I will ask that at least the latter two be restored to me, especially as that it was done by a coauthor of WP:UPP to pages critical of it seems more than a bit improper. Only one was used in the UN campaign (User:StrangerInParadise/VNOUPP). Another (User:StrangerInParadise/PCI) was used to personal contacts and pages I frequent at Wikipedia and only said that there was a vote, but did not make a recommendation. The third (User:StrangerInParadise/AbstainerMsg) was not used, but the intended use was an alternative to the lobbying on the pollingspace itself, which I thought unseemly (JesseW, the Juggling Janitor comes to mind as having been prolific, though I and others did as well).

Finally, I note with that combination of dismay and amusement unique to Wikipedia the naked politicking above by coauthors and proponents of WP:UPP, calculating the political influence and how best to salvage their losing proposal. MarkSweep's suggestion that I be banned for the duration of WP:UPP was extra-special in this regard. Any charges of undue influence and corruption of process should be considered in this light.

StrangerInParadise 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise, I'd like to take this opportunity to repeat some of our founder's words and ideas: here, we're all Wikipedians. We strive to be as civil as possible, to respect each other as much as humanly possible, and to assume good faith to the greatest degree. Calling admins "rougue", regardless of what you thought of their actions, is simply uncalled for; if you disagree with their actions, simply say so, but characterizing them in a negative fashion is uncalled for. In addition, as Mindspillage (who is a she, by the way) told you earlier, we generally don't like people trying to influence other people by placing mass notices on user talk pages. Remember, we're all here to work on an encyclopedia; calling a certain proposal to attention for selected Wikipedians is generally frowned upon. There are other ways of getting your point across. Please, Stranger, take time to reflect upon Jimbo's plea for calm and unity, and act accordingly. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've commented previously that the actions described as rogue were so far beyond either civility or sanction that no assumption of good faith is possible. The term indicates restraint on my part. As to consensus, influence, and policy formation, this is a different and evolving discussion. I point out in my defense only that the proposal is already before an audience of largely selected Wikipedians, and that it is likely that, should it close at a significant number, the policy will be slammed into effect without reprieve. StrangerInParadise 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As to charges of vote-stacking, it remains unclear to me how one can stack a vote in a Wikipedia-wide poll. By notifying only a small subset of people who can be predicted to vote your way, duh. This is so obvious I can't imagine how he could type this and still keep a straight face. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The very dynamics of how people have became aware of the vote suggest vote-stacking of a sort. The pretense that this corrupts the poll assumes it was not corrupted to begin with. The fact is that I could choose pools of Wikipedians at random to notify in the most neutral fashion, and support would continue to drop because this only has minority support. Make no mistake, I sought to notify only a small group of affected Wikipedians. If you like, do the same: where is this pool of anti-userbox sentiment? If you polled those who have responded to the poll as to

• how they learned of the poll
• whether they were administrators
• whether they were motivated by an experience of vote-stacking
• whether they were motivated by POV issues generally

...you would see how self-selected the respondants were. There are all kinds of interesting possibilities for, say, randomly-selected juries and voire dire, but that is another discussion to which to look forward. This is more than a small straw poll, there is every indication that the policy would be slammed into effect without reprieve. StrangerInParadise 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You claim that "The fact is that I could choose pools of Wikipedians at random to notify in the most neutral fashion, and support would continue to drop because this only has minority support" but that claim is very easily exploded. Within days of its inception, this poll was publicised on Wikipedia:Village Pump (Policy) and Wikipedia:Current surveys, and Template:Cent. I do recognise that you're on a very sticky wicket here, defending what even you must recognise is morally indefensible, but it really isn't on to pretend that we're all stupid. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand by what I have said, which is hardly exploded by your statement. Village Pump (Policy) is read mostly by policy wonks like us, and cycles to archive rapidly. Current surveys and Cent I have never heard of, a shortcoming on my part shared by most of the people affected by this proposal. It is not difficult to see that this is, again, a self-selected group- not a bad group, just not representative. As for morally reprehensible, don't get me started.... StrangerInParadise 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Template:Cent appears on a lot of pages ( there a lot of archived pages on that list but plenty of active ones). Anyone both interested in this issue and at all active will run into it. I don't know how you can assume that most people affected by this have not heard of it. Rx StrangeLove 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only say, Rx, that your grasp of demographics is fanciful at best. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think you can be uncivil like that? Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I find get-out-the-vote efforts, however they're conducted, to be democratic rather than anti-democratic. I don't see what's wrong with informing people of a policy debate, as long as all sides have the same right to do so. And I have zero opinion on userboxes. moink 03:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you saw the message itself? What I really took issue with was the loaded language and serious assumption of bad faith in it. Accusing those on the other side of "sabotage" and destroying things, and urging them to vote one way or another, doesn't sit very well with me. A neutral message on the Village Pump or something would be fine. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The willful destruction and bad faith is a documented fact, a fact you find distasteful, but a fact. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Each side of this debate can campaign for votes. Since consensus is suppossed to be from all of wikipedia then the side with the most side should win.--God Ω War 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This and other issues are not votes, nor a count of the most supporters. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite. It doesn't matter, in the end, how many of these activities are engaged in. If as I am now certain is going to happen there is a clear and very solid consensus for the proposed Userbox policy, it will be adopted. Those who engage in "getting out the vote" have completely failed to understand how Wikipedia's decision-making process operates. --Tony Sidaway 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you say this now, Tony and Rx, but had the vote gone your way, it would be the most important thing. What evidence do you have of this consensus, which as we speak falls below 60%. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that things are going my way. That you've attempted to sabotage it doesn't alter that. Allowances can be made. My evidence? Until the sabotage attempts began, when the poll was gathering a more broadly representative subsection of opinion, support showed well over 70%. Make no mistake, that you have resortee to blatantly underhand techniques is a sign that you have failed. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know things on Wikipedia are not straightforward counts (although they're often treated that way). But having more opinions, more arguments, more viewpoints represented in a policy discussion... is that really a bad thing? moink 04:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad thing. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Gandhi who said, We have but to spit and the British would drown. This is the issue with this userbox policy, once even a few of those affected learn of it, it's over. StrangerInParadise 05:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"I can only say, Rx, that your grasp of demographics is fanciful at best" -StrangerInParadise. I'm growing tired of StrangerInParadise's tendancy to engage in personal attacks and incivility when discussing issues. I'll just leave it at this, drawing large numbers into a debate is good, but Mindspillage said it best and I don't feel like repeating it. When the abuse starts I tend to tune out. Rx StrangeLove 05:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only direct you to the spectrum of abuse, threats, condescension and insults directed at me in this very proceding, and ask who has been more the subject of personal attacks. Then I'd direct your attention to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cent, and ask you to count the pages that remain after eliminating Log pages, other templates, obscure policy process pages and links to the template, and reassess the statement, Anyone both interested in this issue and at all active will run into it? The odds of an interested party seeing this are very small, indicating my original point, that the poll has been largely before a select audience. StrangerInParadise 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) two wrongs don't make a right; 2) advising you you that what you are doing, in the strong opinion of a large number of commentators, is wrong does not constitute "abuse, threats, condescension and insults". The martydom act doesn't look good on you, and certainly doesn't grant you a self-serving exception to the norms . --Calton | Talk 07:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an editor there are dispute resolution procedures available for you to use. Personal attacks are not allowed and WP:CIVIL is official policy here. Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With people performing out-of-policy blocks (and reblocks), incivility towards me is the least of my concerns. My commenting on your argument is not uncivil, even with a clearly facitious judgement on your reasoning powers. Don't take it personally. StrangerInParadise 06:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The "I was only joking" defense doesn't really work and I'd ask that you stop making personal attacks and violating WP:CIVIL. If you'd like to continue this on my talk page fine, this isn't really the place for it. Rx StrangeLove 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban for LaszloWalrus

I recently reported LaszloWalrus for a 3RR violation caused by edit-warring on Ayn Rand. As a result, he got banned, the page was Protected, and I was banned, too. He moved the edit war to Objectivism and homosexuality, which I got Protected before anyone got banned. The Protection from Ayn Rand was lifted just now, with a suggestion from Tony Sidaway that I took as a ruling on the initial issue. Unfortunately, Lazslo's immediate response was to ignore it and edit war some more. It hasn't gotten to 3RR yet and I don't want it to.

As per the suggestion on top, I won't rant on, but if you need links to relevant areas, just ask. My request is that he be banned for a substantial period of time. A one-day ban did nothing to slow him down. Alienus 01:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm dealing with this case. It's just a silly edit war and I'll block both parties if they persist. And I've told them this. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, you're dealing with it. What do you recommend now?

He won't Talk, he won't leave the category alone. Should I let him get his way or should I try to fix the category and get us both banned? I think there's a third solution, and it's up to an admin to implement it. Alienus 02:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of these editors are playing silly buggers so I've blocked them for three hours to give them a chance to contemplate the effect that their intransigence has had on the three articles they're edit warring over.

As is my custom, I subject this block to review. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No objections. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, these two editors were warring on Ayn Rand, Objectivism and homosexuality, and a completely unconnected article Rodeo Drive. It was clear therefore that the problem lay with two editors who seem to believe that they have an intrinsic right to edit war. Asking them clearly to stop edit warring, warning them both of the consequences of continuing, had no effect at all. These three hour blocks are to stop the immediate bad behavior, and to show that I'm not bluffing about consequences. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just noted that Alienus (talk · contribs) resumed edit warring on Objectivism and homosexuality after his brief block ended, and LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs) resumed edit warring on Rodeo Drive. I've added a further block of 21 hours to both editors, making the total period up to 24 hours. I expect to see some more reasonable behavior from both when the block ends. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've posted article RFCs on both Ayn Rand and Objectivism and homosexuality regarding the disputed category. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Happyjoe

I while ago I received this message on my talk page, and didn't notice it, because I got so many other messages at the same time. Careless of me, I know, but here it is:

I now accept the pillars of Wikipedia and I agree to abide by all of the rules, regulations and policies of Wikipedia, including respect for consensus and NPOV. Further, I have given up my attempts to provide any input for the Big Spring, TX article. I have prayed about my actions and have been guided to seek forgiveness and change my ways. And I agree to cease making POV edits. I give my 100% word that I will not revert to my old ways and will strive to be a model citizen of the Wikipedia community. Therefore, I most sincerely ask for you to please give me another chance and to unblock my account. I assure you that I will not let you down. Thank you - Happyjoe 24.232.183.52 06:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE!!!

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this situation, and I leave it for others to judge. For those are unfamiliar with the story, here are the links: Happyjoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Happyjoe. Chick Bowen 02:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The sad truth is that he continued to vandalize with open proxies and random IPs for days after he spammed a bunch of people with messages like that. This is just one example on one of the IPs: [84] Spam history can be seen here, [85]. Also, Essjay replied to this guy already. pschemp | talk 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those diffs. I just wanted to make sure. Chick Bowen 03:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happyjoe to help.  ;) pschemp | talk 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

IP address 66.57.20.207

This user constantly blanks warnings from his talk page. File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Standard procedure in a case of an IP blanking notices from their talk page is to revert and warn and if they continue then let an admin know and ask them to temporarily protect the page though that should be avoided if possible since user talk pages are mean't for people to be able to communicate with the person and visa versa. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 10:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I needed to know. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice once more

Deeceevoice, just back from a block: "...JFAS seems to believe only white academics can have any credibility..." User on probation for racially related incivility, among other things. [86] Justforasecond 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit that this could have been taken the wrong way. I understand what you meant, but I do believe that it was that particular comment that deeceevoice was responding to, and she was, in fact, answering your question. Chick Bowen 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious I was responding with Urthogie's language. There was no need for DCV to elevate this into a personal attack on me. If this were in isolation it should slide, but DCV has an extensive history of incivility and not assuming good faith. Justforasecond 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And you have an extensive history of needling her. Given that and your direct involvement in the present example, I'm sure you can understand that I'm having difficulty with the mental gymnastics of casting a good faith view on you bringing this up here - David Gerard 17:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder regarding core Wikipedia policies Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox [[87]]

Deeceevoice removes sourced [88] [89]references prior to the 1920/30 Jazz era [90] and [91] and [92], and eventhough Deeceevoice included the etymology of "hipi" into Cool (African philosophy) [93] she removes the etymology of Cool from Cool, [94] and changes the section header from "Origins" to "Origins in African-American culture" [95], After a 3RR warning she single-handedly moves the whole page [96] "This page should be deleted" [97] [98] and refuses to source her edits eventhough Urthogie asked her to provide sources:

DCV, since you posted those statements of fact, can I expect you to have a couple sources by 2 weeks from now?--Urthogie 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And this is Deeceevoice's response:

No. deeceevoice 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC) [99]

CoYep 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, is there a particular reason why you feel the need to bird dog Deeceevoice? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the user is upset about his white-history.com link being removed, see documentation here. - FrancisTyers 15:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

For serious. The last thing you pointed out was block-worthy, but this just looks like Wiki-stalking. See also Alabamaboy's RfA statement Ashibaka tock 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys wouldn't think it were uncivil to say that you considered only contributions of white academics credible? Justforasecond 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We know Deecee has a temper, but she makes good edits too, and in this case she is in the middle of a discussion about an article. Come back if she is actually being disruptive. Ashibaka tock 20:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Help, help, I'm surrounded by sockpuppets!

The Christianity article has been in trouble since January. A new user, Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrived, and began to make changes that were considered too controversial to be added without consensus. When he was reverted, he reverted back. He took advantage of the fact that we didn't want to report a newcomer for 3RR violations, and kept on reverting, despite pleas and warnings. Once he even reverted 11 times in eighteen and a half hours, even though he was perfectly aware of the rule. His practice was to post a defence of his edit on the talk page, then to reinsert his edit, with "see talk page" in the edit summary, despite the objections of many other editors.

He was joined by a brand new editor, BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who immediately started reverting to his versions, and arguing in favour of his edits on the talk pages. She followed him to other pages, and voted for whatever he voted for. We suspected sockpuppetry. MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kecik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued this practice — brand new editors who reverted to Giovanni's version, and voted for whatever he voted for, following him to lots of different articles. All four editors violated 3RR greatly over and above a possible accidental slip into four reverts. They were not reported at first as they were new. When they continued to revert after repeated warnings, they were reported. All four have been blocked, Giovanni, most frequently.

A checkuser found no evidence of sockpuppetry with MikaM and Kecik, although we still suspect there is a connection, even if they have different IP addresses, as they seem to have no purpose on Wikipedia other than to revert to Giovanni's version, and to give an appearance of consensus for his version on talk pages. In particular, MikaM uses the same language style. The checkuser established that Giovanni33 = BelindaGong. They were both blocked for 24 hours, as they had taken more than three reverts betwen them. The block was later increased to 48 hours. Giovanni later claimed that Belinda was his wife, "and therefore not a sockpuppet", even though they had actively pretended (in their messages to each other) not to know each other.

While Giovanni was "serving his block", another "brand new" user, Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared. He came straight to the Christianity talk page, said he was new, but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni. He then reverted to Giovanni's version. Then Giovanni answered a question which had been posted to his talk page, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker.[100] He changed it immediately,[101] but it was too late, as we had already seen it. He then claimed that he just happened to be at Freethinker's house, and was showing him how to edit Wikipedia, and that Freethinker had allowed him to answer a question on his talk page, from Freethinker's computer. The "Freethinker99" account was blocked, though not indefinitely. (The "BelindaGong" account was also not blocked indefinitely.)

This evening, yet another "brand new" editor, RTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared on the Christianity page, and reverted to something which Giovanni had inserted, without consensus, on Tuesday, and which had been reverted by another user. (This was his third edit; his first two were to his user and talk pages.) He then, in Giovanni's style, defended it on the talk page, and reverted back, again, and again, and again. I warned him, before he had gone over the three reverts, although I was convinced he was a sockpuppet and didn't need to be told of the rules. I warned him again, rather than reporting him, after he had violated 3RR. I explained the rules fully, e.g. about partial reverts, etc. He just kept on reverting, in the style of Giovanni/Belinda. When he had reached seven reverts, I made a hasty report to WP:AN/3RR, without diffs, as I was going to dinner. He was blocked by another administrator for 3 hours, just to stop him for the moment; that gave me time to gather the evidence for the diffs, which I did.

Then, just as I was beginning to relax, NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted to RTS's (Giovanni's) version. I looked at his contributions, and saw that he also started today, and that this revert was his third edit, the first two being to his user and talk pages. I immediately blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I had refrained from blocking BelindaGong, Freethinker99, and RTS when they arrived, because I was involved in that article, even though there was every indication of sockpuppetry. However, I know that admins do block obvious sockpuppets to pages they edit themselves — I've seen it happening for example with AD/CE wars — and there are just too many "brand new" users who appear, revert to Giovanni's version, argue for his version on the talk page, and otherwise show familiarity with Wikipedia. This is the first time I've ever blocked anyone from an article I was involved with, other than pure vandals, and if an admin undoes my block, I will accept that, and will not in anyway consider it to be "wheelwarring". My block was just a quick reaction to the beginning of another war.

I'd like some feedback, advice, and if possible, some active intervention. If I was wrong to block NPOV77, I will accept that meekly! I don't actually approve of IAR, but am not sure to what extent the "don't-block-someone-you're-in-dispute-with" policy applies when, yet again an obvious sockpuppet turns up after another one has been blocked. I think my quick reaction was partly a result of all the trouble I've had simply because I didn't block Belinda, Freethinker, and RTS on sight. If other admins say I was wrong, I promise I won't get belligerent. And I won't wheelwar. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I've semi-protected the page in case any others turn up. I'd say you were right to block given how obvious the sockpuppetry was. I'll keep the page on my watchlist and I'll help you if any more of them arrive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My (non-admin) opinion: Let's suppose for the sake of argument that all of these new users, as well as Giovanni, are telling the truth and are not sockpuppets which is utter bullshit, but bear with me for a second. By their own words, they are nevertheless clearly in the related category of meatpuppets and can thus be treated exactly like socks. Block 'em. PurplePlatypus 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Entertaining situation! I'll help out if I can. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Another (albeit non-admin) opinion: I think you were certainly in the right here. You showed some admirable restraint in not blocking the second (or third, or fourth, or however many sockpuppets there are here) sockpuppet on sight, and there's just a point where enough is enough, especially when they make it so obvious. I've actually seen posts about this situation before and I'm sorry to hear it's still ongoing. Hopefully something can be done to help you (and the Christianity article) out. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also non admin and am often on the "other side" to Ann on debates about this page. I sometimes even agree with Giovanni33. However these "socks" were so blatant (using edit summaries etc like pros) that I think Ann did exactyt the right thing. Chaos is not good for constructive discussion and these constant edit wars are a waste of everyone's time. If someone would teach me how to easily revert to a previous version I will help out if needed. SOPHIA 12:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I am an Admin, and if I weren't late getting out the door this morning I'd go digging for a barnstar for forbearance and patience beyond the norm and put it on your page. You did precisely right; if they feel they have a case they can protest on their talk pages and it can be looked into more thoroughly. Would someone who has time please give this long-suffering Admin a barnstar? or I'll do it later - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I look at it, the blocks can come from the "involved" admin because, essentially, they are not blocks of new instance. If, let's say, some child were to set up 3 accounts and vote for himself/herself/itself on FAC and get blocked for that, then, when that child set up five new accounts to evade the blocks, they could each be blocked indefinitely. They're not being blocked indefinitely for new offenses, but for not serving out the original offense. Some people never figure it out. As Geogre the Wise says: Wikipedia is not the venue for negotiating ultimate truth nor the secret history of the world. They have Usenet for that. Geogre 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern Persecution of Non-Christians

I am moving this discussion here per the suggestion of Tom harrision. If these personal attacks are not repudiated, then I do want to go through all the formal dispute resolution steps, since obviously it's not stopping on its own, despite my pleading. Also, my wife has stopped contributing to Wikipeadia because she is being deny her existence as a full and separate person with equal rights to myself, not my socketpuppet. I'm willing to prove who she is, but no one is intersted in the truth. Giovanni33 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This user was banned from Wikipedai by MusicalLinguist afte he made a single edit supporting my version after I was blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NPOV77 on the basis of being accussed of being a socketpuppet. When I saw him, I was sure he would be accused of being my socketpuppet, but I was suprised he was blocked right away without a user check (so much for assusming good faith). But what really suprised me was that not only was he accused of being a socketpuppet, not only was he blocked indefinitely, but he was NOT accused of being MY socketpuppet! Guess who got blamed? Giovanni33!! They must really hate Giovanni33 to keep smearing his name like this. I guess they go after him since he has been their biggest ideological threat to the dominated Christian POV. I also noticed that my version that he supported was NOT Giovanni33's version. It's interesting that they can ignore this fact, go way in the past to dig up Giovani's history looking for dirt (repeating their version of events), in order to try to paint Giovanni33 in this negative manner, and using this as a pretext to attack others who do not toe the Christian line. About attacking Giovanni33--it's the repetition propaganda effect: keep repeating something over and over at every chance you get, and sooner or later enough people will start to believe it. Even if they really believed that NPOV77 was Giovanni33 (but not me?), I still don't see how that justified the blocked to say nothing of being banned. Is Giovanni33 currently being blocked for some reason what would mean any socketpuppet of his would likewise be blocked? Or is the problem here just one of Giovanni33 not being a Christian editor, and any editor who agrees with him must be done away with? This seems to me to be a major violation of Wiki rules and a major problem with this article. RTS 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'll check the history, you'll see that Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets relatively recently. I am not an administrator and don't have blocking powers, but if the administrators blocked you and/or NPOV77, they had good reason. It has nothing to do with attacking anyone and everything to do with the fact that Wikipedia policy has been violated in the past and has resulted in the complete disruption of this article. Gio's POV has never been an issue...what has been an issue has been his reverts to versions with little or no consensus and the utilization of sockpuppets in attempts to get around WP:3RR. Let's keep focused. To suggest that this is "persecution" shows that you haven't the faintest notion what persecution really is. KHM03 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If they did block, they had good reason? Is this more blind faith? Maybe someone can explain these good reasons since I can't think of any.Giovanni33 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I've been very busy since last week and have not even logged in to check wikipedia. To my surprise, I see some similar nonsense going on in my absense. Well maybe it isn't nonsense given that it looks like my wikibreak/absense was seen as an opportunity to attack me while I was gone. How nice! I have not had enough time to see what has been goin on yet, but what I do see, I don't like. Its rather pathetic really. KMH03, why are you pushing these old lies? I don't have any socketpuppets! That is really old news, too. I won't repeat myself, again, nor should I have to, as this is rather old. Its interesting that no one wants to take me up on my offer to prove that BelindaGong is not me. I guess those who keep pushing these lies prefer to keep up the hoax so as to speculate and continue with the attempts to discredit me. I am sad to see that new users are still being attacked as well. Ill have to do some reading to see what is going on, but I was really hoping these nonsesne personal attacks against me would have stopped by now, as they did seem to calm down. I guess I was hoping for too much. Giovanni33 08:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that Tom harison is involved in the accusations, against me, too, this time. And, ofcourse MusicalLinguist plastered the same socketpuppet allegations against me with all her characterizations as she usually does again. No suprise, there. Now I will have to track all this down and respond, as usual. Will it ever stop? Tom, I don't know if you really believe what you claim to believe, or you are just jumping on the bandwaggon intiated by MusicalLinguist, but you are wrong. I was away and am just now am coming back to read what amounts to more personal attacks against me.

Why do you think this user is connected to me? I looked at the history of the Christianity article and my edits and his are very different. Granted, IMHO his edits are much better than what stands now (which is just back to what it was before any of my changes--all my contributions have been stripped away, it seems--and without consensus), but his edits are missing many things that I incorporated. Also, the language is different, my quotes are removed, etc. It seems to be more refined and trimmed down. Acceptable but not what I wanted. Still, just because an editor happens not to follow a traditional Christian POV, is that reason to block him, bann him, and then accuse him of being connected to me? I'd really like to see an honest explanation for this. What really puzzles me is what did he do to get banned? And by MusicalLinguist, no less? This seems a rather serious violation of standard procedure. I would like to see the theory behind this course of action.Giovanni33 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They were banned for substantially violating 3RR, not for their POV. As for Belinda, we know that your situation is "complicated". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that with RTS--3RR vio (funny name, don't you think STR?). But, NPOV77? He appears to be banned outright by your dearest friend MusicalLinguist, and yet, I do not see the reason for that. Certainly no 3RR that I can see. Am I wrong, or do you misspeak? Also, I still don't see what any of this has to do with Belinda or me. Why need our names be continuously dragged through the mud with these (rather old) false accusations and attacks? Giovanni33 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about the name. It makes me suspicious of this user, who despite his only recent arrival does seem to be quite aware of the disputes on this page and also with some tactics used by some editors. RTS certainly violated the 3RR. I have never encountered NPOV77, whose name makes me suspicious too.

Where did I attack you here? Is my allusion to your "complicated situation" really an attack. But you must know best about it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not see you attacking me but clearly MusicalLinguist, Tom Harrision, and KM03 have all attacked me. Using someone in the context of a bad example is an attack. If you disagree, think about me going around and picking on something that you did once (maybe gave a wrong fact, something that makes you look bad), and then kept bringing it up as a negative example of what Str1977 did, explaining in detail all about YOU when the issue is something that has no connection to you. This is what others are doing with me still despite my protests. About the name being a partial anagram to yours, I will just assume good faith, but it does make it look fishy to me.Giovanni33 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gio - I mentioned the socks because you were blocked for using sockpuppets to evade WP:3RR. I am not an administrator and have no power to block anyone, so the block was not my doing...I merely used your example to correct the user who initiated this section, who was under the mistaken impression that you were blocked for your religious beliefs, which was not the case...you were blocked because an administrator felt you had violated WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. No lies, there...just truth (see here). KHM03 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so my name is being dragged through the mud once again just because I made a good example? How considerate--even though I have asked that this stop as I consider it a form of a personal attack on my reputation. Also, your excuse that I'm only being used as an example is not quite true. Clearly, I see you and others either allude indirectly or directly that I am connected with the violatating editor. This is not harmless speculation, either. Its an underhanded attack. Lastly, you are stating things as a fact, which I know is not true. You said, "Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets relatively recently." This is a lie. My wife, who shares my IP address used her own account, and she is not a socketpuppet. You may think that I am lying, but I've offered to prove otherwise, and yet no one wants this verified. Why? So you can keep repeating the lies under the cover of ignorance and the appearance of socketpuppetry that you can keep stating as a fact, even if only to use my name as an example? Lastly, you say "recently." Not really. Giovanni33 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By "recently", I meant last month...February 15, according to the block log. That's recent, in my view. I haven't muddied up your name...I simply corrected User:RTS who seemed to misunderstand the reason you were blocked. User:RTS brought up your name...not I. It could very well be that it's simply coincidental that several new users (including some proven socks) share your precise POV. If so, that's really unfortunate. But by using socks (see here to violate WP:3RR, you've honestly made it very difficult to assume good faith. I think that's the problem the administrators are having with the new users. At any rate, this is best discussed elsewhere, as it's doing very little to improve this article. KHM03 ^(talk) 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try to wiggle out of what is happening. RTS is bringing up his suprise that user NPOV77 who favored his version was banned and accused of being me--not him. Then you state as facts your opinion about my past socketpuppets, even though it has nothing to do with this situation. So you are in effect defending the use of my name, these past incidents, and then characterizing it as a fact, instead of saying something to the effect, "yes, its terrible that Giovanni33 is still being blamed for things based on speculation and other users, when he has been a very good editor, making lots of useful contributions, and its not fair to him to keep using his mistakes when he first started as a club to beat him with.' That would have been the right way to respond. What you did was pick up the club to take some swings yourself. Thanks! Also, again, you do not tell the truth: the version that RTS and then NPOV reverted to was NOT my version, not my POV. They are different. But, I know its essential to link me to them in order to justify the attacks against me, but even this connection is not justified. But, also its wrong: any new user who does not adopt a traditional, conservative Christian POV will be essentially driven away. This harms the article and Wikipeaida.Giovanni33 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I wake up much too early, and I come across this talk page..... I have to say that I saw a clear abuse of administrator power. First off, NPOV77's first edit was not a revert, it was work on his/her user page. The first page edit was indeed a revert, which is discussed often on pages, and it is possible that the person had read it, having looked at Wikipedia for a long time before ever actually contributing. This revert was on March 5th, and the only revert by that person. Str made a revert, then Musical Linguist did, then Str did again (RTS had been adding in information that Str has been trying to remove.....) then Musical Linguist did again, then Tom Harrison made a revert, then RTS made a revert, then Musical Linguist made her third revert (accusing RTS of making 6 reverts, which I shall look into, but it seems that he was putting different text in and not actually reverting to an older copy) then RTS reverts again, then Str reverts for a third time, and then RTS reverts for what I believe to be the third time, and Tom Harrison reverts for the third time in a day, and then NPOV77 comes in and reverts, followed by Latinus reverting...... who seems to be clearly not a sockpuppet, having well over 100 edits.

So we know that if NPOV77 is a sock puppet, it is to RTS, not Giovanni. If it were Giovanni's sock puppet, the revert wouldn't be against the rules at all. Indeed, It was at 15:44, March 5, 2006 that NPOV77 created their user page and at 15:47 that the revert was made, which does look very fishy, but possible innocence. Str reverted last at 13:53, and Tom Harrison reverted at 14:36.... This would be a 1hr8min break between this revert and the last, 1hr5min between when NPOV's account was likely created and this incident. So how fast does RTS respond? He reverted within 2 minutes of Tom, 2 minutes of Musical Linguist, and 4 minutes of Str. Such a long delay all of a sudden makes it hard to place the behavioral pattern on NPOV77, though I can certainly see a possibility with RTS being a pun on Str1977 as with the 77 repeating itself.

But let us look at Sockpuppet policy... "However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia."

further:

"Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded."

"If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related. Experience has shown that on article talk pages, including polls, the linkage is usually not supported by the information available to developers, so self-restraint in making such accusations is usually the right course."

To the best of my knowledge, these precautions were not undertaken by MusicalLinguist, which makes it a very bad idea to ban an editor which may or may not be a sockpuppet. As an administrator, it would be very easy to have a checkuser see if the accounts were related. It is not illegal for a new user to have done that, even if they did know a lot. For all you know, it could have been a perfectly legitimate use of a sockpuppet by me, because you didn't check to see if the accounts were related to RTS or to me.

I suggest the utmost care in the future, and don't forget, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting". The non-Christians have been pushed into the shadows, while str accuses NPOV to be a relativistic POV. You must incorporate their views in order to be NPOV, even if it's only mentioning that some people feel that this may be the case. There is no reason that anything controversial needs to be states as a fact. I'm still noticing a lack of citations as well, which is the one thing I suggested you get into check. Start with simple in-text citations while you get it hammered out. (Stein p. 78) (not a real citation)

KV 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The place to discuss and review this is the noticeboard. Keeping it brief, NPOV77 (talk · contribs) and RTS (talk · contribs) were the same person. When, using a second account, that same person reverted, that was that person's fourth revert, violating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Was there a user check that confirmed they were the same person? My understanding was that no such user check was done as MusicalLinguist simply blocked that person indefinitely solely based on the fact that they supported the same version of the blocked person. Maybe he was a socket of the blocked person, but how can she assume the worst and then take this drastic against against the person based on making one revert? This seems descriminatory. For instance, if any new user reverted to her version after she just reverted 3 times, would she instantly bann the new user who just reverted to her version and then accuse herself of creating a socketpuppet to evade the 3RR rule? Ofcourse not. Also, I'm still not very happy that this is being used to attack ALL editors who do not adhere to the traditional Christian POV. I see that MusicalLinguist has copied and pasted the usual attacks against all editors. At least this time she removed reference to Sophia and TheShriek, but its not fair to all the other editors, including myself.Giovanni33 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Images in the Kelly Clarkson article

I've left several messages on the talk page of HeyNow10029 (talk) concerning images that he/she uploaded. Each one lacks a fair use rationale, and despite being informed of the policies at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Images, the user continuously reinserts the removed images. On one occasion in the edit history of the Kelly Clarkson article, the user wrote: "Image is fair use screenshot and should not be removed for copyright reasons, if you think there's a copyright problem get an admin to sort it out". This is rather peculiar — are they stating that removing the image from the article would qualify as copyright infrigment? Unfortunately, I am not aware of all of the guidelines regarding images and screenshots, however, another user, WAS 4.250, explained to him/her that the images did not justify as fair use. HeyNow10029 has been repeatedly insisting that because numerous other articles include images lacking fair use rationale, the Kelly Clarkson article should as well. I cannot locate the logic in this mess that has been created, but could someone help me with the situation? The current discussion between myself and this user is taking place here.

Since this predicament began, there are now several IP addresses (presumably devoted Kelly Clarkson fans) who have started reverting the new images that directly relate to the article to the former ones, which currently include questionable fair use rationale (with only two concerns). I would really appreciate it if someone more familiar with the image criteria would participate in this incident, because I can't promote the article with the current state. It may also be notable that several IPs are including patent nonsense and restoring vandalism. Any help would be appreicated. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:26, 6 March 200

Geni has stepped in to attempt removing the "fair use" images. However, IPs have once again been constantly reinserting them. Since I've nothing better to do, here is a run-down of the edits that have commenced in the last twenty minutes:

Geni, "rm "fair use" image not being used for "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents""

Geni, "rm "fair use" images that are not "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents""

Eternal Equinox, "Placed appropriate image"

205.188.116.136, "identification ... (of a) ... program and its contents". The contents of the programs being screengrabbed are Kelly Clarkson, who is being indetified in this article. Thus fair use"

Geni, "nice try but even if we accept that logic it fails on the "critical commentary" part"

Interesting, this situation is spiraling out of control. Seriously out of control. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you claim that each of the images lacks a fair use rational yet as you can see, this page [[102]]is full of hundreds of images, screenshots like the images I uploaded, the majority of them only have the screenshot tag very few of them go further then that in providing fair use rationale. I've asked you before in my talk page how it's possible that those images (many of which were uploaded months ago on heavily-visited pages) qualify as fair use, yet the ones that I uploaded do not. Yet you don't give me an answer and then you complain when I re-insert the image. You seem to think you're better then us 'devoted Kelly Clarkson fans', so much so that you can't even give me a reason for the changes you make. I guess I'm just supposed to accept the changes you make as gospel. You yourself say you are "not aware of all of the guidelines regarding images and screenshots", yet you could have fooled me with the way you police the page and constantly revert everyone else's changes as if we were foolish children that needed to be carefully watched over. I would love an admin to finally look at those pictures and give us an answer. HeyNow10029 03:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

HeyNow10029, I'm going to attempt to remain civil, but I am tired of you shoving words into my mouth. I didn't say that I was better than you, and I don't think that you are a foolish child. I would certainly appreciate an admin to step in because this edit warring has continued for far too long. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're the one putting words in my mouth. I never wrote you said you were better then anyone else, just that it was my opinion you thought you were better then everyone else from your patronizing attitude and hawkish control of the pages. And I stand by that, 100%. HeyNow10029 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It may have been an opinion, however, you stated it: You seem to think you're better then us. Therefore, I accept it in terms that you believed so and did not solely hold it as an opinion. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There has recently been a growing feeling among admins that a project-wide effort to cut back on fair use images is necessary. Mostly this has been done in fits and starts so far, and as you point out, there are hundreds of images still being used without any kind of fair use rationale. However, I don't see this as a defense for any particular image--sooner or later we're going to get around to those hundreds, but yours happens to have come to our attention a little sooner. See Wikipedia:Fair use review for more information. Chick Bowen 03:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a cut-back because there are many situations (including this one) that need to be sorted out. I'm positive that it would benefit Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

64.12.116.6 states: "rmvd sice u been gone image it is not rock-influenced it is rock music". Does this qualify as an appropriate ground to remove an image including fair use rationale? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII

I believe User:RJII violated his ArbCom probation by violating 3RR. As I'm pretty new at this admin job could some else see if he should be banned for a year from Anarcho-capitalism? Cheers, —Ruud 03:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Which ban are you talking about, if he's only being disruptive on a single article (or small set of articles) then under the arbcom injunction he can be banned from those articles for a year, if he's being generally disruptive then he can be hard banned for a year by order of the arbcom probation that RuuD posted above. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant banned from editing anarcho-capitalism where he violated 3RR. —Ruud 05:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Alibabs and the userboxes

I'm not sure if this was brought up anywhere else but It's really getting harder and harder to assume good faith with this editor. He has no clear intention on creating an encyclopedia. All of his edits are basically POV pushing on the userbox war which is now taken to a whole new level of WP:POINT violation.

Since February 14th all this user has been doing is creating more frustration and problems on Wikipedia. All his edits are now consistant tagging userboxes and voting for thier deletion on thier respective TFD which he makes. All his TFD nominations explanations were listed as "Divisive userbox". Most, if not all, of his nominations were not granted. He also previously tagged userboxes under T1 violations, but all were removed or overturned, and if any of the userboxes were deleted it's probably put up on WP:DRV/U now.

Today, earlier, is what really did it for me. Alibabs created both {{User_Nazi}} and {{User AntiPalestine}} and then listed, one of them, on WP:TFD as once again listing them as a "Divisive userbox". If anything this user should be blocked for blatently violating WP:POINT among other things. Moe ε 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In this post to TFD he apologizes for offending anyone and admits to be making a point. I;m not sure we should block him now he stopped, but I do think we should put him on some informal probation to stop this from happening again. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this editor hade gotten away with to much to not even recieve a warning. Thanks Mgm. Moe ε 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He had what can pass as a warning from me [103] when I bulk reverted his very first session. -Splash^talk 01:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this fellow probably deserves to be investigated with a view to blocking as a role account used for trolling. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As has been stated by Mgm|^(talk), I did apologise for any offence taken when I made a WP:POINT. Apart from the breach of WP:POINT, I do not acknowledge that I have been guilty of any other transgressions. I find it strange behaviour that some are looking for me to be banned for nominating POV userboxes for deletion under the guise of me POV pushing. Does this behaviour amount to a WP:ATTACK? This is probably not the place to discuss the userbox war. Alibabs 10:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This was not a discussiona about the userbox wars, but about your conduct on Wikipedia. Moe ε 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading your initial complaint it is obvious that you are complaining about me tagging userboxes with tfd, but you mask the complaint with another complaint about my violation of WP:POINT. I consider your actions to be an WP:ATTACK. Alibabs 12:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:ATTACK again. I have not made an attack against you but have stated what you have done, which are facts, not attacks. Also, I have not "masked" the original complaint. The complaint, as a whole, was your conduct and actions regarding the userboxes, including both your actions of tagging and your violation of WP:POINT. Moe ε 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Heja Helweda, Diyako, Aucaman

These users pass fake information as fact. Without verification at times. Diyako also invites other vandals such as user:Inanna, who has a track record of negativity and problems with the information to join in discussions knowing that they would distrupt order and the established wikipedia system. They are very underhanded and see themselves as the suprme authoritizes. They say something but act in another way. Many people have constantly argued with them and tried to fix articles, but they simply wait them out and then do what they want. Also user:Aucman has harassed and threatened me. 69.196.139.250 05:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

possible unauthorized bot?

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

I can't tell if this is a bot; if you don't think it is, let me know, and I'll try to resolve this with pschemp. Seems a lot of the recent edits have been moving pages from "<foo> U.S. <bar>" to "<foo> United States <bar>". I haven't investigated thoroughly, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the pages beforehand. Further, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) seems to suggest that "U.S." is preferable, or at least acceptable. (This was recently discussed on Talk:United States Virgin Islands and a standard of "<foo>, U.S. Virgin Islands" was implemented for all of those articles.) --Gruepig 09:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, she isn't a bot. At all. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:55 UTC (2006-03-06)

U.S. Virgin Islands is a pretty standard term for that possession. What was debated there doesn't necessarily apply to other usages of "U.S." --kingboyk 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Block Request

user 194.154.22.55 has been repeatedly vandalizing the Friday the 13th page. I noticed that he has been blocked before, a few times. I request that you permanently block that address, because it seems that these partial blocks are not doing the trick to curve his/her attempts at vandalism.Bignole 12:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• According to this page the IP is allocated to a network, meaning an indefinite blocking would also ban several innocent people along with the vandal. Blocking IP addresses is specifically against policy unless the are proven to be open proxies. I'll investigate and do a smaller block if appropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 72 hours (24 added to the length of the last block) for ignoring all previous warnings. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I AM (talk · contribs)

Can anything be done about this person? His account seems to exist purely as a vehicle to abuse other editors and disrupt Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention pagemove vandalism. I blocked him for 1 week--let us know if he doesn't improve after that. Chick Bowen 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

See also Queeran (talk · contribs). The User name itself is problematic, the person's User page is racist, and the User's edits are racist. I will be warning him/her about their edits, but an indefinite block would not be out of line. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is the potential for some editors to be offended by the combination of the name "I am" and the capitalization, as it could be taken to reference the English "translation" of the tetragrammatron, YHWH. If it were God or G-d, we would block; if it were I am or I Am, we would probably let it slide. I'm unsure of whether or not this crosses the line. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Any permanent block imposed right now would be controversial in my mind...how about this? We leave a little message on the userpage saying that the username is potentially controversial, and we'd really appreciate it if the user would consider choosing another one instead. We say that it is to the benefit of the editor that they pick a more neutral name, one which does not have these potentially offending connotations. How about that? We have no other clear guidelines to follow, other than to express our feelings and reservations in this case. Of course, being overly diplomatic may not be too helpful - personally, I'm not too concerned with the username. There are plenty more out there which are active and are more controversial than that. --HappyCamper 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This one is going to be fun; he posted the {{unblock}} template with a rant about racist admins. I've extended him to two weeks for being clueless in the face of a block for incivility, but the pagemove vandalism really should get him indefblocked just like any other pagemove vandal. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You've now threatened me and continued harassing people, so I'm sure you won't behave in good faith. It's just as well I come here irregularly these days. Queeran

Queeran (talk · contribs · count)

I've blocked Queeran for vandalism (reverting a revert and using "rvv"), NPOV violation, and as a possible sockpuppet of Enviroknot. This is not confirmed, but on IRC it was brought up that there was a strong possibility it's the same user. I've indef blocked, pending review by other admins, and a possible RFCU. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:37 UTC (2006-03-07)

I've blocked I AM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef as a confirmed sockpuppet used for abusive editing, and added a note to User talk:Queeran that unblocking should not be granted (he has a history of abusing the {{unblock}} template). I've also protected both pages, as they were being used for further attacks. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I AM has a different IP, but Enviroknot is known for his open proxy fondness. Queeran acted exactly the same on IRC too. Note also that using a name like "Queeran" on Islam-related pages IMO warrants a {{username block}} - David Gerard 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong with that name? Not disagreeing, just wondering. Babajobu 11:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Queer and Koran. His user page makes reference to Islam too. I AM is apparently a negative reference to Judaism. Secretlondon 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Still not seeing it, why is Queer and Koran bad? Might it offend Muslims who hate gays? If so why should we care? Neither Queer nor Koran are offensive in themselves and combined they aren't offensive. If his name was TheFaggotAllah, I could understand but I see no problem with this. - FrancisTyers 12:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble assuming good faith with it - it seems to have been created to troll Islam articles. Secretlondon 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Today both Queeran and I AM discovered the wonders of Tor, and both came in to #wikipedia on IRC from Tor proxies separately to complain about abusive Wikipedia admins. silsor 21:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 129.7.35.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for block evasion; has admitted to being User:I AM. Chick Bowen 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering that this is the second IP block on him in the last half hour, (the other being 129.7.35.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), this may not be over yet, :( - TexasAndroid 21:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:205.213.5.250

205.213.5.250 (talk · contribs) is vandalizing again. Can an admin keep an eye on him/her? -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Next time, you might want to list at WP:AIV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I learn something new every day. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Me-Calabi (talk · contribs). first edit responding to the IfD for an image uploaded by a previous sockpuppet (note personal attack against me in the edit summary). Also, this edit using an image that another one of his sockpuppets uploaded. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Someone please block this user. Now he's vandalising my user page. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Someone else please do the notification on his talk page and undo his vandalism -- I've got to run. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

extreme anti-Arab hate messages?

Someone posted to my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Khwarizmi&diff=42502059&oldid=42453735 This user(Iranian Patriot) has been sending out extreme anti-Arab hate messages like these, completely un-sourced, fabricated propaganda, and have nothing to do with the subject matter. He just put it to bait in users for a flame war...can something be done about this?...

I'm not really sure what consitutes hate messages, though it looks pretty unpleasant to me. Guidance? William M. Connolley 20:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not very pleasant, but not vandalism, hate speech or even incivility in my opinion. I say keep an eye on him/her but do nothing now. Just stating, arguable, facts and making an argument. Just my OP.Gator (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the usual racist crap. I'm going to try to asking this chap to stop it. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See here. I hope he'll respond positively. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He or someone using the same IP has been engaging in petty vandalism today, and has been blocked for 48 hours. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Severe vandalism on todays featured article

I've had to sprotect Barbara McClintock twice tonight due to severe vandalism from multiple sockpuppets. Please keep an eye.--File Éireann 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we have strong policy not to sprotect articles linked from the main page. Secretlondon 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I rvv'ed a couple of times before. I will add to my watchlist and keep an eye. I will rm the sprotect ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is right. Please do not protect the front page featured article, ever. See User:Raul654/protection for an explanation. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been occasions where the day's featured article has been hit by multiple dubious edits. I think a brief period of a few minutes' semiprotection while it is sorted out is probably the least worst option in practice. David | Talk 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism IP's I have encountered so far today

By no means complete:

• 192.149.109.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - on Norwich University
• 198.237.84.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.250.162.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - on Ma$e
• 209.208.78.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - on Shi'a Islam
• 69.37.121.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - on 1918 in music
• 70.89.123.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)- on Shirley Chisholm and Booker T Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangerInParadise (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Edited for format by Ryan Delaney

Thanks for the vandalism reports. In the future, these should go to WP:AIV or WP:VIP though. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, use WP:AIV for simple clear cut vandalism, and use WP:VIP for vandalism that is complex, and requires much investigation. If you are unsure, just go with WP:AIV :D --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Hijoli Cribi!

Hijoli Cribi! (talk · contribs)

This User has been creating tons of hoax articles and edits about nonexistant Myst games and concepts, and was not only edit warring and violating 3RR frequently, but deleting warnings from his Talk page and being uncivil in edits and edit summaries. I have blocked for 31 hours and warned that more will be forthcoming if he doesn't reform. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Druiken (talk · contribs) has been adding content relating to Hijoli Cribi's myst articles to existing myst articles. Every one of the user's contributions relate to the fictional myst game somehow. Sigh. -- Vary | Talk 02:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Photosynthesis Man

I have a suspicious feeling that Photosynthesis Man (talk) is a reincarnation of User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires (talk). Their contributions are similar, and both added tags to the Kelly Clarkson article when unnecessary. Also, both accounts edited Girls Aloud.

Tags added without explanation: At Kelly Clarkson as Photosynthesis, At Kelly Clarkson as Harry Potter and the Gold Fries

—Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. All edits were vandalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 65.96.160.248

"Wikistalking" by anonymous IP -- removes my edits on several unrelated articles. [104]

Justforasecond 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. --kingboyk 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is clear incivility in the edit summaries and evidence of wiki-stalking. Seems to be an IP who has found their way round Wikipedia remarkably easy. As I am a new admin I have blocked for 1 hour and ask that a more experienced admin review my decision and consider extending (or removing) the block if need be. --kingboyk 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He had stopped editing an hour before your block, so presumably the situation is over. If he returns, he can be slapped with 24-48hrs. -Splash^talk 01:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1 hour is usually fine (if someone goes batshit at a 1 hr block, they're probably too unstable to edit Wikipedia at all), and noting here if you're unsure is a very sensible idea in general. If I'm unsure of a block, I hang around to make sure I can get collateral damage email - David Gerard 11:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 65.3.250.153 / User:1liberator legal threats

From Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army: "Wikipedia is also a Florida not-for-profit corporation, so venue is proper in Florida courts. I never had a blog; I won many Judgments, however. The issue, is, therefore simple: do you agree to co-operate, do you agree not to delete my factual contributions, or do we need to take the dispute to a formal (Wikipedia) level immediatelly?" This seems a pretty obvious legal threat. The user in question is (yet another) POV-pushing nationalist whom I've been, probably rather optimistically, trying to educate in the ways of NPOV. He seems to have escalated to legal threats remarkably quickly. As I could be interpreted as being "in dispute" with this user, I'd be grateful if someone else could take the necessary action. -- ChrisO 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:1liberator and 65.3.250.153 are the same user - he seems to have forgotten to sign in for his latest contributions. -- ChrisO 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I have warned the editor against future comments that could be construed as threatening legal action and opted not to block at this time. If additional or more explicit threats are forthcoming, bring it back up and I'll issue a {{threatban}}. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Serial copyright violations / re-uploads / sockpuppeting

User:Nestore has repeatedly been uploading numerous copyvio images of the Yugo car, as I noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76#User:Nestore. On investigating this, I found that some of the images in question have been through IFD and speedy deletion up to five times previously, over a period of four months, but have repeatedly been re-uploaded by Nestore despite repeated warnings not to do so. In view of this, I've blocked him indefinitely per WP:COPY#If you find a copyright infringement ("In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.")

He has since used two sockpuppet accounts, User:NestorYugo and User:Yugo65efi, to evade the block and re-upload the copyvios yet again, along with fresh copyvios. I've indefinitely blocked both of the sockpuppet accounts as well as speedily deleting the images.

Unfortunately he's been up to the same tricks on the Serbian Wikipedia, which includes all of the copyvios in a gallery at the end of the Yugo article there - see sr:Југо (аутомобил). Does anyone have admin permissions on the Serbian Wikipedia to get rid of the images from there as well? -- ChrisO 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Does sr.wiki even have admins (many of the smaller ones don't)? You could ask a steward to help out if not--that's all I can think of. Chick Bowen 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbian wikipedia isn't that small - it has over 10,000 articles. Secretlondon 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It has 37 admins[105].Geni 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Zurab Urushadze deletion

Just in case anyone notices and questions my deletion of this article, it was done upon special request of the originator of the article, who, after reviewing several users' additions to the article, got curious about some of them, and did some more searching...whereupon he found this. It's a google cache dump, contents:

Dear administrators of "Wikipedia", I inform you, that Professor Zurab Urushadze is a famous Georgian scientist, one of the founders of Quantum Biophysics and Bioelectrochemistry in Georgia. The article about Prof. Urushadze must be undeleted! With kind regards, Dr. Izolda Chkhetiani, Executive Secretary of the Georgian National Section of EUROSCIENCE. Mar 27, 2005

Comment CV at http://www.webhostcorp.com/members/zurab/ Dpbsmith 14:19, 28 Mar 2005

Comment VfD discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zurab_Urushadze.

Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process on 0:54, 27 Feb 2005. Two clear "keeps," six clear "deletes," plus nominator's implicit delete vote giving reason as "vanity" . Since then, article has been re-created once by an anon and twice by User:Levzur and properly speedy-deleted each time as re-creation of material voted for deletion. Further attempts to re-create the article in the English Wikipedia should be considered vandalism. The contributors might want to consider submitting this article to the Russian Wikipedia, ru.wikipedia.org. Dpbsmith 14:30, 28 Mar 2005

Keep deleted. Just an average professor. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 29 Mar 2005

Does anyone here have sufficient expertise in Quantum Biophysics and Bioelectrochemistry to know whether or not this scientist is important in his field? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 29 Mar 2005

Keep deleted. Valid VfD vote. Levzur's back? Oy. RickK 08:15, Mar 30, 2005

Keep deleted. Valid VfD. The repeated recreation of this article smells like vanity. Gamaliel 08:20, 30 Mar 2005

Undelete. No harm is being done including it, Wikipedia is not paper. The Prof has published papers; a writer of a book or some short stories would be included in Wikipedia, why not a scientific article. I missed the VfD, but if my vote were included, it would be 4 vs 6, not a consensus to delete. gracefool |☺ 10:26, 30 Mar 2005

If you had voted in the VfD it would have been three keeps and seven deletes. And if you and I had both voted in the VfD it would have been three keeps and eight deletes. And if you call a dog's tail a leg then a dog has five legs. But we didn't vote in the VfD and a dog's tail isn't called a leg, so what's your point? Are sysops acting on VfD's expected to take into account the opinions of people who didn't vote? Dpbsmith 13:31, 30 Mar 2005

You don't seem to grasp the purpose of VfU. It is not to revote on things that were properly deleted because of VfD votes. It is to get things restored that were improperly deleted. This article was not improperly deleted, therefore the votes to undelete are not valid. RickK 20:37, Mar 30, 2005

Keep deleted. First, this was properly deleted by vfd. Second, the person is not notable (a total of two references on Web of Science, as the first person on vfd discussion noted). Third, the page is being created by his relative , Levon Urushadze . Wikipedia is not for promoting relatives. Andris 00:21, Apr 2, 2005

If anyone feels it appropriate to do so, perhaps the article name should be protected. Tomer^talk 03:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Central banned from Jehovah's Witness pages

Because of persistent assumptions of poor faith that Central (talk · contribs) makes regarding the edits and actions of individuals involved in Jehovah's Witness-related articles, along with characterisation of edits this user disagrees with as "vandalism", insertions of misleading external links to critical sites within article body text and accusations of bias levelled at me after I tried to discuss the matter amicably with him I'm banning him from all JW articles. This is as per the arbcom probation ruling on his behaviour. I'd be most grateful if people would please watch his contribs and, if need be, implement blocks to enforce this ban, although I'll probably be able to handle any enforcement necessary. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

NicholasTurnbull, You threatened and harassed Tommstein in your ever so pseudo-polite supercilious and condescending manner, then maliciously banned him for a minor petty reason last December (for the crime of daring to disagree with you) and now you are after my blood merely because I also dared to disagreed with you. Is no one here allowed to disagree with your unfounded opinions or they get banned (or shot as you may prefer?) as in a totalitarian dictatorship. Plus of course, not to forget (as you clearly never do) I objected as did other administrators to your unjust petty ban on Tommstein, banned just because he dared to disagreed with you on one of your unjust POV label accusations on a minor edit, and that was clearly an unforgivable sin in your eyes, as you are openly demonstrating now with me. Your POV accusations are false, but you refuse to discuss them, but obviously prefer the abuse tactic of just banning anyone who dares to not bow before your opinion. We had this abuse from a 15 year old child admin and now it from you a 17 year old child, are there no adults on this website to deal with adult matters in a mature and experienced way? How will you fend off many people's perceptions when they see how you are behaving, and they believe you are demonstrating what appears to many to be, not only false charges based on your own biases, prejudices and refusal to debate any issue, but a more worrying trend in rather malicious and vindictive desire for revenge against anyone who dares to disagrees with your subjective opinions? I will take this up with you in person if you don't remove your grossly unjust ban and open abuse of admin powers. Central 11:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Central for 24 hours for the above post as another violation of his personal attack parole. He will be pleased to know that I am a bona fide adult, and that I brought all my maturity and experience to bear on this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, Central has disagreed with my block on his User talk:Central:talk page. If another admin would like to review my block to determine whether or not I was just going after some 'cheap thrills' by participating in this 'persecution fest', feel free. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Central: I am tempted to simply not reply to the above, based on its scurrilous and unacceptably poor faith character, but since you accuse me of "...refusal to debate any issue..." I shall reply to your points above. Incidentally, this charge begs the question: what am I refusing to debate? There is nothing to debate, as far as I can see, and debating would generally require at least a modicum of rationality and reasonably polite behaviour from you, which I feel the above does not demonstrate. You have not raised debate other than simply responding with your views that I am being biased. I attempted to raise the issue of NPOV with you politely on your talk page, to which you replied with animosity and assumptions of poor faith. You have persistently shown an anti-Jehovah's Witness POV editing stance, which is not acceptable for an encyclopaedia. As far as I can see, the matter is perfectly clear cut - POV editing is not tolerated on Wikipedia at all, and I see no reason why my action in banning you from Jehovah's Witness pages was not in defence of the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. You accuse me of bias, as Tommstein did, but on what basis? You say my view that you are pursuing a POV stance of editing are false, but yet you do not back up this conviction of yours by any evidence and indeed respond with animosity rather than politely indicating why this is not so. Does this strike you as reasonable behaviour for a Wikipedia editor on your part?

I feel that your judgement on my ability as a Wikipedia administrator on the basis of my age and beliefs is frankly also not within the bounds of decent behaviour, which reaffirms the purpose of banning you from the trouble areas that you have been involved in. If you make these kind of judgements towards everyone who disagrees with you, then I don't much want you editing at all, and I am not ashamed of stating so. Considering that I hold a job of some responsibility in my profession, and yet I would not consider myself above everyone who disagrees with me in the course of my work, I think you have a serious case of egocentricity with your assuming fault on the part of those who hold differing views. I held no personal fault with you to begin with, and indeed attempted to discuss with you amicably and in good faith. As for your threat to "take this up with you in person" - words escape me, they really do; I think you perhaps need to re-evaluate the perspective of what you are actually doing here. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ril changes RFC process and no one noticed

Was there any discussion of this that I missed somewhere? I reverted this terrible terrible idea. [106] Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I sent the template to MfD. --cesarb 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

check license for deleted image on French wikipedia

Could someone check the license for the deleted image fr:Image:Muscade.jpg (bypassing the Commons redirect somehow--I don't know how). I copied this image to En some time ago and I thought I'd have used the same license (GFDL) on the English page that the French one used. The image is now at Commons but I see that version is currently tagged as public domain. So, either: 1) I slipped up when copying the image from fr to en (it was PD and I made it GFDL (not a copyvio but slightly antisocial)); 2) someone else slipped up when moving the image from fr to commons (it was GFDL and they made it PD, a copyvio); or 3) the image was originally GFDL and the photographer later released it to PD (OK but should add a note). I just noticed this when marking the local English copy en:Image:Muscade.jpg for deletion as a duplicate. Thanks. Phr 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to talk to a fr admin, as its going to be in the deleted history... Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time today that someone has needed an admin at another wiki. I just found the master list; I don't know if others knew about this, but I didn't. What would also be useful would be a cross-reference for people who are admins at one but active on another. Chick Bowen 05:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd guessed that admins were admins everywhere. I'll ask on fr. Phr 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, per ArbCom decision, banned from the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces. Today he decided to revert four of my edits on four different templates in violation of his ban (three of them in the span of 2 minutes), the other about 30 minutes ago–

• 04:08, March 7, 2006
• 04:08, March 7, 2006
• 04:09, March 7, 2006
• 06:54, March 7, 2006

He's been blocked three times in the past week or so for these same violations, and he appears to have no intent at stopping. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for one hour. It's a technical violation at most. Stifle 15:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's disruptive in my view because I can't reliably work if he's off reverting everything I do. (Which seems to be the case so far). Worse, he's often reverting to templates that destroy the page for disabled readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer again

USer:Lightbringer, banned by ArbCom from any article dealing with Freemasonry, apparently returned as User:Userdata. It's pretty obvious it's him, as he is the only one I know who insists that several works of fiction blaming the Jack the Ripper killings on Freemasons are actually nonfiction... in fact he even created Jack the Ripper non-fiction specifically to list a film featuring Sherlock Holmes versus Freemasons and a comic book as nonfiction, and no other works at all. He also removed a reference to author Stephen Knight having a brain tumor (he died of it, so verifiable, but the whacky anti-Masons like to believe he was killed to silence him) and other parts of that article to try to put an obvious slant on it. DreamGuy 09:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that I'm still theoretically off ill, though I've been theoretically watching the sockpuppet theatre on Freemasonry, so others will need to keep an eye on it for now. Request checkusers on WP:RFCU as appropriate, referring to my talk page for the messy tale. Lightbringer is the main sock, but there are others playing up and editors of good will on all sides are getting a bit jumpy - David Gerard 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, hadn't figured the Basil Rathbone connection before. --pgk^(talk) 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Soggy biscuit

An anonymous user (presumably the blocked User:MutterErde) inserts a copy of a deleted article from dewiki. Since s/he uses permalinks it may be advisable to delete the affected versions.--gwaihir 10:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the revisions as you suggested. We should keep an eye on this, as it's been reinserted more than once. The article in question is de:Kekswichsen, which has been protected against recreation there. Getting around that by posting the same content here should not be permitted. By the way, what makes you think this is MutterErde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Chick Bowen 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Typical behaviour, AOL-proxy IP address, several places on dewiki, e.g. de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Cascari/Januar#Kekswichsen.--gwaihir 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:132.33.132.19 is Travis Air Force Base

User:132.33.132.19 is a massively shared proxy for Travis Air Force Base - as I just discovered when wikien-l-owner got an email asking about the block :-) I've unblocked it as collateral damage and explained that short blocks may still be needed, but it shouldn't be blocked long-term. If someone from the base keeps being dickish, don't put a long block on, but do consider contacting the sysadmins with dates and times, because an air force base sysadmin will have a much bigger LART for his users than we ever could - David Gerard 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Not sure what to do here, but account seems dedicated to attacking an individual (named) and just seems interested in vandalism. I suggest the account be deleted and/or blocked idefinately.Gator (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be using the user page to make up for a deleted page he wanted to include that was deleted for being a personal attack. This one's got issues.Gator (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the user page as an attack on a named individual, also tweaked the section heading here to link properly. FreplySpang (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Block Request

User 207.30.17.114 has been repeatedly asked to stop vandalizing pages, but they wish not to comply. Bignole 17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Has now been blocked. Please make reports of vandalism to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism and not here as you will get a speedier response there. David | Talk 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On-going vandlaism by 72.1.206.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It would appear that this individual's sole contributions have been vandalism, and, despite repeated warnings, s/he has refused to play nice. Kindly block this IP. Cheers! --Sadhaka 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not true. There are some good edits too. Reverse DNS shows it to be a school. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Central blocked indefinitely

He was put on 24 hour personal attack parole in the Tommstein case and he's continued to be as viciously abusive as he can. In addition, his actual article contribs have been the same level of rubbish over Jehovah's Witness articles. I was wondering whether to hit him with another 24 hours (even though he manifestly doesn't learn and doesn't want to) or just give up and block indefinitely as a hopeless source of disruption, trolling and vicious personal abuse. Then I saw that TenOfAllTrades had given him the 24 hours, and Alkivar the indefinite a few hours earlier. So I undid both blocks so as to hit him with the indefinite again. If anyone wants to review this block please do, but honestly, look through that recent contrib list, and his talk page, and you tell me if he's worth the trouble - David Gerard 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note, by the way, that what really swung it for me was the viciousness of the abuse - he was targeting to be as actively nasty as possible. This wasn't just your typical brittle editor with poor impulse control - David Gerard 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn I hate when I forget to purge previous blocks to prevent that damn blocking time bug.  ALKIVAR™ 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar (or someone else who knows what Alkivar is talking about), could you either explain what you mean by "purge previous blocks" or point me to a discussion of this elsewhere? It sounds like something I should know about. Chick Bowen 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment (hopefully this will be changed eventually), if you blocked someone for say 8 hours and I came along 5 minutes later and blocked them for 48 hours only the shorter of the blocks will remain in place. So in the above, Central would have come off his block in 24 hours even with the indefinite block unless someone unblocks and then reblocks with the longer time. --Syrthiss 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are multiple blocks in place then the block only lasts until the expiry of the shortest block. In this case Alkivar's indef block was undone when TenOfAllTrades' 24 hour block was completed. Alkivar meant he should have lifted the previous block before applying a longer one. That's my understanding, anyway. Leithp 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I knew about the software preferring the shorter block, but it sounded like Alkivar was saying there was something he could have done to prevent TOAT's later block from undermining his. But I guess he just meant it in a general sense. Thanks, guys. Chick Bowen 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If my understanding of the timeline above is correct, the 24 hour block was in place before the indef block was applied by Alkivar...so what Alkivar is commenting on is he didn't check the block log for standing blocks, or did and forgot to unblock/reblock. --Syrthiss 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Checking the logs, it seems that Alkivar blocked Central indefinitely about four hours before I placed my 24-hour block. When my 24-hour block expired (whether I placed it before or after Alkivar blocked) it would have lifted both blocks.

I should have checked the block log to see if Central had already been blocked...but Alkivar should have put a notice somewhere–in one of the threads here about Central, or on Central's talk page–letting the rest of us know about the block. Oh well. No cookie for either of us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

I have banned User:KDRGibby from editing Participatory economics for the period of one year, because of a 3RR violation. —Ruud 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask why a simple 3RR violation merits that, but then I looked at his userpage and wow. Ashibaka tock 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's part of his ArbCom probation. David | Talk 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the fair use images from his user page. Chick Bowen 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

New vandalbot in testing

See [107]. I've also alerted the CVU, time to stoke the bots! - David Gerard 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh great, more bot attacks </sarcasm> 155.43.145.84 14:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Alex 101

I blocked User:Alex 101 a few days ago for repeat edit warring. I got an email from him saying that he would stop, so I unblocked him, but he keeps getting caught up in collateral damage blocks. Any ideas? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Probably just isolated collateral incidents (esp. in huge ISPs like AOL. Did you ask which ISP is he on? - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Hall Monitor

blocking is one thing but User:Hall Monitor blocks people for months and then reverts anything they've done without even checking to see if it needs changing.

BTW some people can't use discussion if you block them. 132.241.245.23 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It was long overdue in my opinion, Grazon. Many of your edits and edit summaries are intended only to provoke people. For some background, see Grazon (talk · contribs) and 132.241.245.49 (talk · contribs). Rhobite 01:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

NSW/Ozemail proxies

There's been a recent surge of vandalism coming from the range 203.166.99.224/27 (203.166.99.224 - 203.166.99.255), which contains several web proxies apparently used by New South Wales schools. I had to put a 1 hour range block on it before, and I just instituted another 1 hour range block. Here are the individual IPs:

• 203.166.99.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A more permanent (and less collateral-damaging) solution would be welcome. Rhobite 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again, for two more hours. Rhobite 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 hours. I don't see any other choice. Rhobite 22:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate Behavior by Postdlf?

In regards to this editsummary on MC Hammer "revert removals of unflattering facts--I'll block anyone who does it again" [108]

I'm under the impression that's considered unacceptable behavior by an admin, threatening blocks over edits that the admin is involved with. Is that correct? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This was not a content dispute, as you seem to have assumed; I've never previously edited that article, so I was not "involved with" any "edits." I was reverting obvious blanking vandalism, after someone had posted a notice on the Village pump that the article had been subject to repeated deletions that only removed information that was unflattering to the subject. You've overreacted and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Postdlf 03:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(copied from the talk page) It would seem that your reversion IS involvment in of itself. I've been watching the article, and the "obvious blanking vandalism" isn't obvious at all...I've never heard of the information, and on the surface it appears pretty highly suspect. Is it verified, cited?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, my question is not about the reversion, it's about the threat. Of the several admins that I hold in high regard on wikipedia, I've never seen any of them make such an overt threat like that. Hell, even the arbcom appointed mentors in the Neuro-linguistic programming case don't just flat out say "go against what I say and you'll be blocked". That's the whole reason for having warnings isn't it?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a hint: next time you see an admin do something "inappropriate", use their talk page to sort things out first. If you don't get an adequate response, then bring it here. android79 03:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I did bring this to his talk page first. And if you'll reread my above post I was asking if it was considered ok "I'm under the impression that's considered unacceptable behavior by an admin, threatening blocks over edits that the admin is involved with. Is that correct?" So here's a hint: I brought it up here to ask whether it was "inappropriate" or not. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I don't believe Postdlf is involved in the page. His actions were in good faith. He readded material that he believed was deleted vandalistically (cool word!). His threat to block was made in the belief that some fan or promoter or even Hammer himself was trying to remove any and all critical material. Now you say the material that was added back in was suspect, so I think the best thing to do is add a disputed tag to the article and ask for references on the talk page. If none are forthcoming then I will revert myself. OK? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I just fell out of my chair laughing over the thought of Hammer on wikipedia. Thanks, and sorry for the fiasco over this Postdlf.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, as funny as this is, it could be true. A site we link to as his blog has a link on the sidebar to his article here. In any event, I just came here to say: Please Hammer, Don't Vandalize 'Em! Ral315 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image overwritten with another

The article Jamie_McCrimmon (a Doctor Who character) includes the image [[Image:Jamie.jpg]]. Unfortunately, due to the common name chosen for the file, this image was replaced yesterday with an image of an entirely different person. Can some admin kindly revert it to the version that existed before 6 March? (The 'revert' links are missing for me as I'm no admin).

thanks - MattHucke^(t) 02:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's wierd. I tried once it didn't work. Reverted myself and tried again, it didn't work. I'm sure I'm do something wrong, so hopefully another admin will come in and fix it up. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, purge the page, and it should be working --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good. Thanks! MattHucke^(t) 02:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that working! Canderson7 ^(talk) 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, as I said in my RFA, I am an images admin :-p Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka is disrupting an arbitration workshop page

Administrator Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has removed a lengthy table from the arbitration workshop page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop (he is not a party to the arbitration.) After I asked him to stop, he is now "refactoring" my comments there, moving them out of context. This is very disruptive to the arbitration in progress. Please ask him to refrain from editing the workshop page. I suggest that he edit the workshop's talk page for the time being. Thank you. --James S. 02:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I initially moved the table to the workshop talk page (and included a link on the workshop page, in context), as it made the workshop page unreadably verbose. I have indeed been moving James S's comments into the "comments by parties" sections of the page. In so doing I was probably being too lax -- I considered removing them to the talk page also, but I decided that it would be more appropriate to let a Clerk do that.

James's belief that only parties should be editing a workshop page is, to the best of my knowledge, simply incorrect. But if I'm wrong about that, I welcome an education. Nandesuka 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit a workshop page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Bannanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just left this on my userpage. Should this be taken as indication that this user is a sockpuppet of Nengli02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who uploaded the images in question, Image:Df34ty.jpg and Image:Entry.jpg? Advice appreciated. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• 15:45, 4 March 2006 Chick Bowen deleted "Image:Df34ty.jpg" (tagged as unlicensed for more than 7 days). Also, Entry.jpg is legit. Also, "Wagga brothers?" I would agree with saying this is a sock of the uploader of the deleted image, although a checkuser would be nice. --Zsinj^Talk 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• [109] -- Wagga Brothers history.

The current image at Image:Entry.jpg is a Commons image with the same title as the image I deleted. It was an image of Rugby players used at the Wagga Brothers page. Chick Bowen 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:205.188.116.5

205.188.116.5 has vandalized a tremendous amount of pages recently. It's an AOL IP, but they've been blocked 19 times, and it's probably time for a 20th. Most recent vandalism was on Stay Fly today. User added, "these guys have very little penises. They like little boys. Like Micheal Jackson. Ow!" --Descendall 11:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just do what we have always done. Revert. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Ceraurus (formerly User: Mark Bourrie), aka User:Isotelus

I have concerns about this user. First, he has been blocked for abuse at the Rachel Marsden page several times, but none of them show up in his new block log. He changed his name yesterday from User: Mark Bourrie (his real name, apparently) to User:Ceraurus. When this was done, he got a fresh block log here, thereby removing from his history (here the three blocks for vandalism and 3RR to the Rachel Marsden page. Also, he has created a sock-puppet (see here here], by which he broke the 3RR rule yesterday (again, to revert the Rachel Marsden page, see here, blocked here). Second, he proposed deletion of the Rachel Marsden article on March 4, which resulted in a speedy keep (see here). On March 7, his sock puppet again proposed deleting the Rachel Marsden article, a proposal that he then logged in as himself=Ceraurus to support here. Later in the day here, he deleted his vote as Mark Bourrie/Ceraurus. Concern. My concern is not so much to punish him--I think there are times when he seems genuinely interested in making the article better and in finding compromises. But I think it is important that the details from earlier blocklogs find their way to his new block log. Bucketsofg 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A vandal with dozens of IPs

An anonymous editor employing a large number of IPs has been making continuous controversial edits and reverts of content at pages related with the history of nuclear power in Argentina. The most vandalized pages are Huemul Project and its talk page, but Ronald Richter, Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica, Instituto Balseiro and related ones have also received their share.

I have compiled a partial list of IPs showing the same pattern of extreme subjective bias and repeated non-consensual edits: 200.43.201.50 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.95 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.137 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.143 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.152 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.184 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.251 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.253 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.10 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.15 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.41 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.72 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.88 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.131 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.134 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.140 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.207 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.243 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.244 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.252 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.16 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.71 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.130 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.155 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.180 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.43 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.95 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.124 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.137 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.167 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.88.214 (talk · contribs)

The IPs in this list can all be found at one or another of the IP ranges traced by this query to LACNIC: <http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/whois?lg=SP&query=AR-MIDA2-LACNIC>. It is practically impossible to deal with vandalism from them with the usual methods, and the editor knows it.

I have no idea where else to post this. Feel free to move it if it doesn't belong, but please advise on what to do. The established editors of those pages don't want to give them up to a vandal. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from 142.32.208.238 (talk · contribs)

This IP recently vandalised Thirteen Colonies twice [110][111] You can see from this user's talk page User talk:142.32.208.238 that they have been warned for vandalism before. You can see from their user activity [112] that they have made many sets of vandalism, notebly here are some examples [113] [114]. SirGrant 19:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

TheDoctor10

TheDoctor10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am a bit concerned over the recent contributions by TheDoctor10. He's been trolling around a lot recently, making personal attacks, personal threats, threats for disruption and general harrassment. Some example of this are:

• After a dispute with ed g2s, he decided to change his signature to the following:

--Someone who thinks User:Ed g2s is getting to big for his boots (talk)

He was warned about this, and blocked for it. He still hadn't removed it when the block expired.

• Harassment of Khaosworks. [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] Later: [121]
• Harassment of FireFox. [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] Later: [127] [128] [129]

Also see his talk page, Ed g2s's talk page (more specifically: [130] [131] [132]). He has been blocked at least 8 times, and once earlier today, for 3 weeks. I don't think this is enough, nor will it resolve the situation. Something obviously needs to be done. What do others think would be appropriate? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, — FireFox • T • 19:41, 8 March 2006

At this point, I think that requesting arbitration is the only way to go. He already had an RFC, and numerous people have tried to explain to him why his behaviour is unacceptable. It's time to put a stop to this.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to go to Arbcom with this when there are open and obvious threats of disruption? [133] --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Melissadolbeer socks

I've just noticed that yet another completely obvious sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer has been created:

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

Can someone please look over the (amazingly similar) contributions of the several sockpuppets of Melissadolbeer (Listed at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of melissadolbeer and also User:Mikefar) and see if they might be able to spot who Melissadolbeer really is (Melissadolbeer is simply the main role-account).

The puppeteer is someone who keeps a close watch on WP:RFAR - Melissadolbeer's re-appearance was pretty quick as soon as her/his subject matter reappeared at RFAR. And its likely someone who has a strong dislike of me (or possibly Doc Glasgow) for reasons other than those that the Melissadolbeer sock shows issues with, but I don't know who.

Using "what links here" and "user contributions" on the user names that Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets constantly refer to I've come up with a few possibility (This isn't a definitive list of possibilities by any means):

• Bacchiad (talk · contribs) - made no edits between october and 12th February. 12th February was around the time when an arbitration case involving me (as the "prosecution") began. October was when the prior one involving me occurred. The talk page suggests an interest in spurious theories about Christianity and Jesus topics (essentially Melissadolbeer's main contributions were spurious theories about Christianity/Jesus).
• (I was hoping to find more, but that's the only one I can find so far, and its probably another sockpuppet, albeit more sophisticated than the others)

Thanks, --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible threats bo User:Netoholic

Netoholc's comment to User:Avirette could be viewed as a threat: "You have a chance now to just say sorry, and let the page go back where it was... no harm, no foul.". [134] _→AzaToth 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the actual link to my comment (on Avriette's talk page) ... and here's a follow-up. Clearly not a threat. Gimme a break. IHBT. -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)