Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 14 March 2006

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Reporting User:Mcorcoran for Incivility

I responded to a recent change on the Ivy League article at 21:59, 11 March 2006 by User:Mcorcoran where he claimed that he would take legal action "As an administrator of the University (of Pennsylvania)"against a fellow user.[1]. I responded to his claim by pointing out that he should not threaten legal action as an administrator of UPenn especially when he is not one as evidenced by his User Bio. my response (User:Mcorcoran's bio). He has responded to me with a threatening message on my user talk

<<Please do not get upset. You are insecure about the fact that you attend a low ranking state school (ok half state school) . Other than the open green spaces, your campus looks ugly. Cornell's buildings are absolutely awful. Also, hate to break the news but Cornell was not even around during the Colonial period. Just because you could not get into one of the Ancient Four (Penn, Harvard, Yale and Princeton) does not mean you can make rude comments. Grow up. Just to let you know Cornell is named after one of my ancestors. Oh, knowbody uses "UPENN" (only low class non WASPs); its "PENN.">>[2]

I find his comments to be threatening and incivil--Xtreambar 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by User:68.109.154.125

I removed this users external link on the Photoblog article because they only had 6 photos on there and thought it NN. They sent me this email:

From:   	 "y control" <xxx>   	   	  	  Date:  Friday, March 10, 2006 4:12 AM
To: 	xxx
Attachments: 	(none) 	  	HTML | Plain Text | Header | Raw Content
hey, thanks for being an ass and deleting my link off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoblog

and added the link [http://sharks.devgirl.ca/] back to the page. JohnRussell 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Everyone has an equal opinion (unless they're a vandal of course). People are entitled to have different opinions, you know. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And people justify this non-consensus moving of pages how? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is continuing. SPUI seems on a mission to go ahead with his own disambiguation methods, even adding pages for "City Name (ST)" contrary to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#North_America. While I appreciate that he is putting in an effort to build WP, his behavior regarding ignoring other editors in establishing standards thru voting and consensus, his blantant disregard for established guidelines, followed by his continued un-civil behavior makes working on these projects challenging to the rest of us to say the least. --Censorwolf 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Censorwolf didn't explain what he's talking about, I will. He's complaining about me making redirects like San Francisco (CA) to San Francisco, California in order to use with the pipe trick. I have been doing this for a long time. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there IS nothing wrong with linking to a redirect, and that is not the issue. However, creating redirect pages to link to just because you prefer another name format contrary to accepted WP guidleines for location names IS inherently wrong. Just link to San Francisco, California like the rest of us do instead of creating a whole other non-standard page. --Censorwolf 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wars have spread to New York. Please somebody do something! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing something, and you're going apeshit over it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you have done to the New York pages, I have undone. Daniel Case 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently SPUI's approach is when he is in a disgreement with someone he targets pages that editor has worked on and applies his rude disambiguation rules in violation of concensus building. However, as long as there are also reasonable editors working on the road pages I am sure that sanity will prevail. --Censorwolf 03:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. I guess we can add stalking to his list of fine qualities. He's also undone serveral of your new york page moves. Again against consensus.JohnnyBGood 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.[3] He changed it immediately,[4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry to contradict you, Tom, but assuming that NPOV77 = RTS, it wasn't that person's fourth revert, it was the ninth revert. RTS reverted eight times, and as soon as he was blocked, the brand-new user NPOV77 appeared and reverted to his last revert. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would like to clarify my position, because it may be a bit muddled... I believe that RTS probably did make NPOV77 as a sock puppet, but it is not certain, and at most a very temporary block pending on a checkuser IP check should have been in place. Simply blocking the user with only conjecture (even hearsay is absent) and not immediately taking the proper steps to make sure it isn't a mistake is something that could have the effect of preventing a NPOV view in the article, and perhaps in many other articles the user may have contributed to in the future. Certainly, I have seen a false accusation of RTS reverting, when he was putting up revised versions of new text that others simply reverted, based upon the stated objections of the reverters. It seems that there is a bit of a bias on the part of MusicalLyricist that needs special attention when she uses her administrative power in regards to the article.

KV 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points:

To Giovanni33:

Would I ban a new user who reverted to my version? I'm not sure what you mean by my version. I don't have a particular version. I have contributed very little new material to the article. Most of my edits have been grammatical, etc. or reverting a new, controversial edit which had been inserted without consensus. I have never inserted a pile of new stuff and insisted that it stay up despite the objections of others. You are the one who has been inserting entire paragraphs of new material, often inaccurate (Galileo was tortured, St Thomas Aquinas's teaching on transubstantiation was based on older, pagan religions with cannibalism), highly POV (despite Cyril's possible involvement in Hypatia's murder, he was later proclaimed a saint by the Catholic Church), and unproven but asserted (by you) as fact (Christianity grew out of "mystery religions"), plus efforts to link the evil deeds of nominal or lapsed Christians with Christianity itself (Hitler, etc.). So, no, I don't have "my own" version. I haven't taken large chunks of pro- or anti-Christian books and inserted their content into the articles. I have collaborated with the other editor, made suggestions, and done relatively little editing.
There were no newly-created (same month as the dispute) accounts that showed up to agree with Str1977, KHM03, Wesley, Tom harisson, me, and many others, or to revert to what you call "my" version, though, as I've said, I don't have my own version. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is hypothetical, and you skirted it. But the point still stands and the answer to the rhetorical question is obvious: no, you would not ban a user who was new and reverted to your version. And, ofcourse you have a version--the one that Str1977 has. You will always revert to what he reverts to, and vote for what he votes for, etc. You even joked before that he and you are meatpuppets on his talk page once. The example you give of taking action against a user who inserts "true faith," constantly is not comparable to this situation because one is obviously a clear case of NPOV violation, which can be treated and vandalism, while the other is a legitimate content dispute that was split among editors, and it was a dispute that you were involved with. Yes, you banned outright, without even a warning indefnitely for making one revert. And he is still banned. Did you even bother to check if the IP you blocked forever is not a public IP address that will also affect others? The action is not one of an "obvious" socketpuppet. At most its a probable one, but that is just speculation, a guess. One must err on the side of caution and assume good faith when there are any room for doubt. In this case there is. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that the question was hypothetical, and I did not skirt it. I pointed out that it has not happened that a newly-registered user reverted your edits. Str1977 and I do not "always" revert to each other and vote for what the other votes for. He edits many pages that I don't go near. (I know, as I sometimes look at his contributions to see if he's on line, particularly if I've recently sent him a message.) And he votes on those pages, generally to do with history. I vote on lots of Wikipedia project pages, and a few article talk pages that he doesn't go near. So despite my little joke on his talk page (which was actually saying that I realized from some of his recent edits that he was not my sockpuppet), nobody who looked at our contributions could say that my purpose on Wikipedia is to ensure that he gets what he wants, through helping out with votes and reverts, or that his purpose on Wikipedia is to ensure that I get what I want. We share the same POV on Christianity-related articles. We both edit many articles that have nothing to do with Christianity, and we generally don't even meet each other on such articles. A look at BelindaGong's contributions or Freethinker99's, and those of the suspected sockpuppets, show that their purpose on Wikipedia was to revert to what you wanted and to vote for what you wanted.

Concerning your point about the public IP address, you don't need to worry. I didn't block the IP address indefinitely. I blocked the account indefinitely (and immediately reported it here so that any administrator who disagreed could review and if necessary undo the block). AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you cite about my editing are cherry-picking from all the articles where I've made hundreds of edits and these examples are not representative, nor even relevant here. Also, your characterizations of even these select handful of edits are not even accurate, if if you keep repeating them, and I have to keep correcting you (it does get boring). For examples my clear stance is that Galileo was threatenend with torture, shown the torture intruments that would be used unless he renounced himself and his work. I quoted a scholar who felt that his abuse, humiliation, house arrest, and overall treatment amounted to tourture--this was an attribution, not my own POV. When this wasnt clear I changed it myself. Where I was wrong, I quickly correct myself. Yet, you omit this fact and try to collect examples where I might have made a mistake and repeat that over and over. Clearly you are trying to bias others against me. I don't appreciate that. Similarly, my clear stance is that Christiaity may have been influenced by mystery cults. Regarding the Hitler article, when I arrived it never mentioned his religion at all--yet all other leaders, such as JFK, etc. their religion is mentioned. I found this ommission odd. It's POV to suppress a well established fact, that he was a life-long professed Christian. This is not an example of tryingn to link evil deeds with Christianity. That is your characterization. From my stance its about being honest, even if if it might offend the sensitivities of some Christians. Also, I never take large chunks of any books and put them in articles. The only time I take large chucks of anything is to quote them in arguments on the talk page to provide support for my claims. I use the talk pages more than the main articles because I believe in working with others and in the power of reason and argument, and NPOV. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, Giovanni, that you did insert into the article that Galileo was tortured, not that he was shown the instruments of torture. To say that you corrected it because it was unclear was misleading. You were reverted by another editor, and at least two editors told you that you had got your facts wrong. Regarding Hitler, you have on many occasions tried to insert things about Christian dictators, Christians carrying out massacres, as part of the Criticism of Christianity article, (especially at end of January), even though it was repeatedly pointed out that the article was not called "Criticism of Christians", and the that stuff didn't belong there, especially when it was a question of nominal Christians, lapsed Christians, etc., unless you could show that it was Christianity that made Hitler etc. carry out their atrocities. Regarding the large chunks of books, I don't mean that you insert them verbatim, but you do rely very heavily on anti-Christian literature, take what it says at face value (even inaccuracies about Galileo being tortured), and insert large sections into articles based on what you have found in those books. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking any editor. I am stating the verified fact that you reverted way over the three-per-day limit when you were new; that we were kind and didn't report you for several of these violations but instead patiently explained the rules and begged you to stop; that we reported you when you continued and continued and continued in full awareness of the rules; that BelindaGong appeared on Wikipedia as a new user and immediately reverted to your version, started voting for whatever you voted for, defending your version on talk pages, and going massively over the 3RR despite our initial indulgence, explanations, and pleadings; that you both pretended not to know each other, although you were asked many times; that MikaM and Kecik appeared as new users and started reverting to your version and following you to different pages to revert for you and vote for whatever you wanted; that a checkuser established a link between you and Belinda; that when you were both blocked, Freethinker registered, said he was new but agreed with you, immediately reverted to your version (several times), then accidentally answered a question in your name while logged on as you, then claimed that he did, after all, know you and that you were at his place and he had allowed you to use his computer; that RTS appeared as a brand-new user and reverted (including partial reverts) eight times, most of which reverts were to material that you had inserted last week, even if partially modified; that I sent him some messages explaining the rules rather than reporing him immediately; that as soon as he was blocked, another newly-registered account (NPOV77) appeared and reverted to his last revert. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't think it's attacking me but I do, as I've stated many times. To contstantly bring up a negative account of what I may have done when I was new, even though I have stopped, and even when there is no connection to me, has the same effect as a personal attack and is harassing in nature. This is esp. true when its only your characterization of these events, colored by your bias and interpreation of the facts that you know I disagree with. Its really boring me for me have to keep defending myself, stating my version of these events, esp. when they are not relevant to anything that is happening now. I ask that you get over this obsession with my past, my wife, and my friend who I introduced here. I tire of these arguments that I see as petty and uninteresting. I'd much rather spend my time on the bussiness at hand" making the best encylopedia in history. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, Giovanni, that your earlier behaviour means that when new users turn up and revert to your version or vote for your preference, they will be suspected of being your sockpuppets or your meatpuppets. We weren't impressed when you said that Belinda was your wife, after the sockcheck results came through, and after you had pretended all along not to know her. Nor were we impressed when your friend (if he is a separate person) showed up and made his first article edit a revert to your version while you were blocked for edit-warring sockpuppetry. It's not an account of what you "may" have done: it's an account of what you did. And you did continue to violate 3RR, after your first block, even without sockpuppets. Str1977 and I very kindly said that we wouldn't report you ([5] and [6]). As for my obsession with your past, your wife, and your friend, most of my posting to Wikipeida have absolutely nothing to do with your history of edit warring. I don't bring it up except in response to the arrival of new suspected sockpuppets. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A negative checkuser does not prove that someone is not a sockpuppet, as a single user can have access to different IP addresses. Other evidence can be used, such as your little slip up in forgetting to log off as Freethinker99, or (as in a case I remember) a user telling another user to look at his personal website, and giving the URL, then doing the same thing with another user under another name several months later, or excessive interest in the same articles combined with similarity of editing style. I don't actually expect that a checkuser would find a link between the two latest sockpuppets and you, as it seems you were away at the weekend (you've even said that), so you could have had access to an IP address that you had never used before. People who start reverting and voting as soon as they sign up are more likely to be accused of sockpuppetry. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are assuming they are sockepuppets as a fact. This has not been established yet you took actions that assumed extreme prejudice. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never accused SOPHIA of sockpuppetry. It is true that her POV is much closer to yours than to mine, but I do not suspect people of sockpuppetry simply because they don't share the Christian POV. SOPHIA's behaviour has been completely different from yours from the start. Her husband, TheShriek, was checked because he was one of SEVERAL new users who agreed with you and voted with you. Since one of those users was found to be a sockpuppet, the checkuser request was clearly justified, and we had no way of knowing beforehand which ones we should include and which ones we should exclude. I am fully satisfied that TheShriek is not a sockpuppet, and even deleted and partially restored his user page so that the sockpuppet accusation would not appear in the history of it. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that anyone who was not a Christian at the Christianity is given greater scrutiny; a usercheck is only one element, and that is why Sophia's husband was check out--even though he never did any reverting. All he did was stated his POV which clearly identified him as not being a fellow Christian--hence he was also targed with special interest. That is why Sophia was right to be indignant and left in protest. I'm glad she is back. You will also remember that earlier Sophia also stated that she felt ganged up on and bullied. This is also an accurate assessment of the objective atmosphere that exists for those who disagree with the dominant Christian POV. What I see that is that there is a clear tendency to be extra nice and friendly--to become friends--with those who share your POV, and you all work together to defend a certain POV, and view and treat those who don't as the "enemy." I find this type of dichotomy an unhealthy dyanamic that encourages an atmopshere of edit waring as opposed to one of collaboration.Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni, since you obviously read my talk page, as well as messages I send people, and paste them on various pages to prove a point, you have no doubt read that SOPHIA later clarified that she had expressed herself badly, and that she had been trying to say that the fact of disagreeing with several editor who could all type faster than she could was scary when she was new. See here if you need to refresh your memory. A sockpuppet tag was put on SOPHIA's husband's user page, though not by any of the Christian editors on the Christianity article, and as far as I know, that was why she was so indignant. I and Str1977 sent her several kind messages, and we both welcomed her back when she returned. I also used my admin powers to remove the sockpuppet allegation from the history of her husband's page, and I asked her to let me know if there was anything else I could do. It's convenient for you that SOPHIA made what she later called "that fateful scary quote", but the facts don't bear out your accusations. It's true that TheShriek didn't revert. But his eleventh edit on Wikipedia was a vote for something that you wanted. (Something which BelindaGong also voted for.) It's perfectly acceptable to ask for a checkuser based on a lot of new editors voting for something that a particular editor wants. And that particular editor (yourself) was shown to be using sockpuppets, or, if they really are separate people, meatpuppets.

I agree entirely that non-Christian editors have been given greater scrutiny on the Christianity article. However, that's just because in this particular instance, several non-Christian editors behaved like sockpuppets, and that such suspicions were later confirmed. That meant that on the Christianity article, we now had a main contributor (non-Christian) who was known to have used sockpuppets. That makes us extra suspicious. On the Jesus article, there is an editor User:Kdbuffalo]], who is known to have used sockpuppets, so a request was very quickly made for a check on User:Raisinman, who was editing from athe same pro-Christian POV. (The request was made much quicker than the request for a check on your socks and suspected socks, by the way.) And when the check was positive, he was banned indefinitely. It simply didn't happen on the Christianity article that lots of newly registered accounts appeared and started voting for and reverting to a pro-Christian version, so your statement is highly misleading and unfair. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To King Vegita

You are incorrect in saying that I falsely accused RTS of reverts. A partial revert also counts, and I did make it clear when I reported him here that some of the reverts were partial ones. I also, in the interest of complete fairness, made sure that he knew that partial reverts and different reverts could also count. Giovanni has often made partial reverts, by inserting large chunks of "mystery cults" stuff, to which other editors object, and then changing a few sentences and reinserting it.
I and others have in the past blocked obvious sockpuppets without a checkuser. For example, a few months ago, a new user inserted "It's the true faith" several times into the Christianity article. He/she was blocked for 3RR, and then another brand new user inserted "It's the true faith", and then another, and another, and another. I and another admin were blocking as fast as we could, often after – guess what? – 'one revert, and eventually semiprotected the article. This went on for several days. I'd say we blocked dozens of them. And, for the record, I agree that Christianity is the true faith.
As regards my use of administrative powers in that article, my block of NPOV77 was the first instance, apart from the blocking of dozens of "true faith" sockpuppets.
As soon as was possible after the block of NPOV77, I reported it here for feedback, and was quite happy to accept criticism, and even the undoing of my block. I've also invited NPOV77 to try to convince me or others that he's not a sockpuppet.
I have seen other administrators blocking on sight when a brand new users reverts to the version of someone blocked for 3RR or sockpuppetry. I was aware all along that BelindaGong and Freethinker99 were connected to Giovanni, either as sockpuppets or as meatpuppets, and I also felt immediately that RTS was a sockpuppet, but I didn't block any of them on sight (or at all). I wasted large amounts of time patiently explaining the rules to Giovanni's suspected puppets, even though I was convinced they already knew them. I told them politely that they had violated 3RR, but that I wasn't going to report them. I begged them to stop. In fact, my reporting of Giovanni was the first 3RR report I ever made, and I had been on Wikipedia for ten months at that stage, and had often seen 3RR violated by people whose POV I opposed. There comes a stage when you just have to say, enough is enough. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I shall reply to something you said to Giovanni, but should have said to me. Sure, a negative checkuser doesn't prove that it wasnt' a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, but it does strongly limit your ability to prove that he was. Certainly, a checkuser should be done in case you could silence everything by proving they're related accounts. To outright declare someone to be a sockpuppet as an official stance, Wikipedia (in the part about tagging as specifically being) says : "Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following:

the user's own admission;
matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence;
a ruling on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration."

None of these three have happened.

And even if it is a sockpuppet, it cannot be proven yet that it is RTS's sockpuppet. For example, as I have said, it could have been my sockpuppet for all you know. Should it have been, it would not have been used in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. This argument should also answer the blocking "obvious" sockpuppets without a checkuser. This was a slightly probable sockpuppet, not an obvious one.

I could also add in the Wikipedia policy "Do not call these users 'meatpuppets'; be civil."

Partial reverts do not seem to me worthy of being counted as full reverts, but I'll certainly accept that if you can show me the Wikipedia policy which states that partial reverts are counted as such.

Well, you reported it here, and I am giving you criticism. Call me a bit of a civil libertarian, but I feel that accounts should be treated with the same "innocent until proven guilty" principle available in most democratic nations. Let us be sure that it is a sockpuppet.... certainly it doesn't hurt since you have more revert power anyways.

If you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a sockpuppet, then you shouldn't follow the wrong ways that other administrators act. Administrator status is given rather liberally remember.

KV 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:3RR, it says, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period."

I don't think any uninvolved person thinks that this was a "slightly probable" sockpuppet, but I'm open to correction. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

He doesn't appear to learn from his blocks. He has begun making reverts on fair trade and classical liberalism again. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For good reason, you people are not consistant editors and you all put in and defend, pov original research and I ask for citations and proof and you can't provide it.

I'm reverting liberalism because of constant deletion of cited relevant material.

And trying to correct fair trade to reflect proper criticism instead of a supposed criticism section that does nothing but promote and support fair trade (While actual criticism is noticably absent!)

I want admins for admins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Gibby 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Roadcruft sockpuppetry

JohnnyBGood (talk · contribs) = Gateman1997 (talk · contribs). Best edit summary of the last hour: "JohnnyBGood 01:06 March 07 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 15 (rv to last version by Gateman1997 per consensus. Consensus trumps so called "common sense" on wikipedia.)" That's the initial datum from which I work out how much good faith to assume. Both are blocked indefinitely until I get an email saying which one he wants to be the "main" account, and the other stays locked. I'm sure this will brighten SPUI's evening - David Gerard 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually happen to agree with these two people... does this make me a sockpuppet too? And "I'm sure this will brighten SPUI's evening" puts a limit to the amount of good faith I can assume. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure David has enough evidence to prove that both accounts are used by the same person, right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make this determination through CheckUser, David? android 79 03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see heading at User talk:SPUI "A birthday present for you?" --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOCK. Both of these users have over 150 edits, and both have made substantial highway contribs. Did anyone check that first? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many edits each account has if m:CheckUser says they're the same person. android 79 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's no checkuser reported yet. Also why are both accounts blocked? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it seems that David's post above is the report, though he was a bit vague about it. android 79 04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the crime these chaps committed is 3RR, yes? --Golbez 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI and JohnnyBGood, but not Gateman1997. All Gateman1997 did was have a controversial opinion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the notice says Gateman1997 was blocked for sockpuppetry -- which your comment ten minutes previously implicitly recognizes -- your omission of that little fact puts a limit to the amount of good faith I can assume. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ommission of a) the already stated (above) and b) the false. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So wait... there is no debate, no discussion, etc. regarding this? This is totally unjust here. Read User talk:SPUI and User talk:Gateman1997. Also if this was a sock then why weren't the proper notifications and/or templates used? Also emails and messages to David Gerard have gone unanswered. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard has no valid email. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His e-mail address appears on his user page. Raven4x4x 11:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Doesn't look like definite sockpuppetry to me, just two misguided contributors. Is there checkuser evidence? [7] and [8] seem to roughly match (though not as much as RickK and Zoe - that's interesting to look at), so it's definitely possible, but I'd expect many users to have roughly the same "editing profile" like that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who wishes to remain anonymous has shown me some evidence:

JohnnyBGood 01:35 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) (?Battle of Hogwarts)

JohnnyBGood 01:48 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Chase Field

JohnnyBGood 02:41 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wintel (?Alternatives to Wintel - Mactel is only used by a small subset of anti intel mac nerds.)

Gateman1997 03:13 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) (?Battle of Hogwarts)

Gateman1997 08:50 February 22 2006 (hist) (diff) Interstate 93 (Probably the second most important junction on I-93 is its junction with 95.)

JohnnyBGood 19:18 February 22 2006 (hist) (diff) Interstate 93

Still not conclusive, but worth a checkuser. This could have been avoided if David Gerard actually said he ran a checkuser or gave other evidence. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also hey um theres' a thing called Special:Contributions? Maybe one took a look at the other's contribs. I'll admit to having done that before. It's interesting to see how many people have the same interests too. I've run into a few Mac-using roadgeek tech-loving Christian Wikipedians on this site. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe and RickK are not sockpuppets of eachother. Compare [9] and [10]. Please try to be a bit careful when accusing people of being sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be a bit careful when accusing people of accusing people of being sockpuppets. I in no way said they are sockpuppets, just that their editing patterns make it look that way. [11][12] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when accusing people of accusing people of accusing... ah what the heck. I've lost the count. Please be careful about making people lose count. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? I use AOL, I don't see how anybody is going to be able to show any sort of sockpuppetry even if it were true, which it isn't. Somebody else (an anon who created an account just to make the accusation) made the same comment on my Talk page the other day, I have no idea why they are claiming this. I don't understand why someone would assume that I'm RickK, but I can say categorically that I am not. Is RickK even still editing? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suspicion was roused by the lockstep edit-pattern matches (compare their contribution histories, and particularly compare their votes), then a checkuser, then putting all their contribs with timestamp into a spreadsheet and seeing what the pattern was. The user has attempted to be clever to evade detection by checkuser - David Gerard 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what your saying is that checkuser came up blank, right? I cannot help but recall the regretable episode of sockpuppetry accusations regarding User:TheChief. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I was blocked a while ago for suspected sockpuppetry:

15:32, 11 July 2005 David Gerard unblocked SPUI (contribs) (I was wrong - my sincere apologies to SPUI)

13:53, 11 July 2005 David Gerard blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (sockpuppeteering with "Wikipedia Vandalism Warning Bot" and all the "Fonzie" users. Well done, most amusing.)

It would be nice for the evidence to be public.--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out User talk:David Gerard- he never mentions a checkuser. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateman1997 has sent me an email. Part of it is as follows:

The only argument I would state is that, "I'm not a sockpuppet of JohnnyBGood. I never have been. I've interacted with him on a few of the CA highway articles resisting SPUI's changes, but that's it. And I would also state that the fact that the accuser stonewalling any attempt at contact is VERY suspect. Especially when he admits he has no evidence but his own misguided suspicions after the checkuser failed. I just want to get back to contributing to the project positively as I always have."

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the correlation between edits equating to sockpuppetry here. Let's see the spreadsheet analysis and how the conclusion has been deduced or jumped to. --Censorwolf 14:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay just realized something... if JohnnyBGood is a sock of Gateman1997 then why the heck did Gateman1997 report JohnnyBGood at WP:AN/3RR for 3RR? Also, why does JohnnyBGood keep getting 3RR violations if he can just use the Gateman1997 account to evade 3RR? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

As it seems that no administrators are interested in taking action regarding this matter and doing the right thing, I am forced to take action myself. The blocking administrator, David Gerard, has not provided much evidence to the accusation that the users Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood are sockpuppets. A CheckUser regarding this matter has given negative results, as implied above by David Gerard and deducted by another user whose comment is above as well. It has been difficult for the blocked users to contact him since his "Email this user" link is not enabled (another user had to notify me of the fact that his email is listed on his user page). When the blocked users contacted him via email, they did not receive a prompt response; in fact, they had to wait hours for a response. There is evidence at WP:3RR to the fact that they are not sockpuppets. Also, these contributors were not properly notified of their block with the correct templates. However, the blocking admin subsequently made what can be deemed as "celebratory comments" to user SPUI User talk:SPUI. Another one of these comments may be found at the top of this section as well.

Now, nearly forty-eight hours after these users were blocked, there has been no sufficient evidence presented to support these blocks. These users are blocked from contributing to Wikipedia and giving input to critical decisions involving nearly all of the hundreds of articles regarding the entire road system of the United States. Therefore, if noone objects to this proposed action by myself by bringing concrete technical evidence to my attention or the attention of those who read this page, I will be unblocking Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood within sixteen to eighteen hours of this post. I believe that this proposed amount of time is sufficient for the blocking administrator and/or others to gather any evidence that may exist in regards to the supposed sockpuppetry of Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood. Failure to rectify this unjustice will reflect poorly on Wikipedia and its administrators and will ostracize two extremely important, if not essential, highway contributors from Wikipedia.

Regards,

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

Posted at 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked Gateman1997 per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked JohnnyBGood per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide, Fadix (talk · contribs), and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

User:Fadix currently dominates the article. I have tried to reason with him but so far he hasnt allowed me to edit the article. He does not allow anyone edit the article that he does not agree with.

User:Fadix has 316 edits in article namespace (214 on Armenian Genocide) ^[13]
I have left this article alone for weeks only to be threatened by fadix recently.
A sockpuppet check was done by User:Fred Bauder and the conclusion is that it is extremely unlikely that Karabekir is Cool Cat.
I have tollerated Fadix long enough. I do not enjoy being threatened out of the blue. He has a less than admirable incivil attitude towards not just me but practicaly everyone. An example is avalible on Talk:Armenian Genocide, User Talk:Fadix, etc.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will like to warn administrators that might view this page to wait few days since Coolcat is aware that I am preparing to open an arbitration cases against him, I am accumulating evidences that this time he has gone way to far by using a sock. Just few days I require. Fad (ix) 01:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to step back on this. We don't own articles at wikipedia, nor do we consruct accusations of fellow editors. Fadix, when Cool Cat says that he does not possess an sock, I think you'd better listen. Try and see if actually constructing conversation in the essense of good faith will yeild results. If he says no, try to work with him.

An word for you too, Cool Cat. Stay calm (as you have been) and try to reason with Fadix. He seems to be somewhat concerned, and I ask you approach him with friendlier consulting. Both parties are failing to assume good faith, and Fadix's poor attempt at resolution is great cause for concern. Please just work together. This is not an valid reason for an rfar case.-Zero^Talk 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, it is him, even Tony admitted that this user seems to act like Coolcat, I would never accuse someone if there is no enought evidences, Coolcat is lying, and an example is when he tries explaining how come other users use his codes, when Nafriz his other alias has used those codes before anyone in Turkish Wikipedia(an alias he is also denying), Coolcat when he registered in Febuary 2005 brought them with him. Coolcat is denying all of this but just wait and see the evidences I will be presenting and leave you judge by yourself if those are just vague claims. No one can trust Coolcat and it has been already shown how chronically he lies. Let see what he does when I start translating some of Nafriz contributions which clearly document that Nafriz is him. Beside, from someone who did not know Turkish at first, and then basic level 1 he now jumped to level two. Check and see recently how many new users have been registering defending Coolcat and Karabekir. Also, that this log-in was registered soon after the subject of Karabekir(the man) was brought by other logins (Enverpasha and Talaatpasha) is another evidences on how Coolcat this time has gone really far, he can accumulate all the evidences he wants about me, he is doing this to threaten me knowing how much he has to hide, I am not afraid, I have nothing to hide, I respect too much Wikipedia to do what this individual has done. Fad (ix) 18:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to reason with him for a year. I have not even edited his Armenian Genocide for ages.
- He has been extremely uncivil to not just me but to anyone editing Armenian Genocide or participating in talk. User:Shelby28 has been declared a sockpuppet of mine for correcting User:Karabekir's grammer mistakes.
- A vauge example of his uncivility is avalible on this diff [14]
Also his behaviour here is problematic, he has an arbitration ruling he just technicaly breached by responding to my comment here just 7 minutes after my posting. Fadix is not active here and must have been stalking me to know about my posting.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny that you are saying this, you of all people should be the last to bring this up. You have suspected Thoth, Streotek, Davenbelle, Raffi(if my memory doesn't fail me), John(recently) and others I might skipt to be me. Also, I said possibly for Shielby28 and not a direct accusation, but given that you after dragging me into the mud I expect you to blow it out of proportion. Fad (ix) 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide ^diff * Karl Meier * (-19975) back to concensus version before Karabakir (aka Cool Cat's) edits. Please see talk and discuss any major edits to this article first

A 3rd partiy (a person not a part of the debate) removing 20K while acusing me of sockpuppetary is problematic behaviour.
Karl Meier has a history of stalking me as per an arbitration hearing. Now he is stalking everyone he thinks is my sockpuppet and treates them with the same incivility. Just some misguded claim appears to be enough to convince him.

I know no one believes this kind of behaviour is approporate and I feel someting needs to be done about it.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a compromise, would be appropriate for you two to leave the other chap be for awhile and focus on other articles? This may involve becoming neutral in this situation and hopefully assuming good faith. As you're probably aware I have a very, very high opinion of my fellow editors here at wikipedia, and I think it constructive to pool your diverse editting skills on articles around the wiki. I'm trying to remedy this and I hope that we could drop the potential rfar and attempt some more dispute resolution. -Zero^Talk 15:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:SPUI has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked, as SPUI clearly isn't a pagemove vandalbot. From a cursory check of the moves it appears something of a movewar may be underway; while unfortunate that's not a reason to uphold the automatic block. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it wasn't the nature of the moves, but the rate. In the past, SPUI has moved up to 70 pages per minute, and he claims this is all done manually using Firefox tabs.

I guess the question is, should SPUI be permanently whitelisted when it comes to page moves? He does seem to have a bit of a checkered history at Wikipedia. Any opinions? -- Curps 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that blocking is in order, but the moves I am aware of are being done without a final consensus, in fact the voting has gone the other direction. SPUI seems to be on a mission and while applaud his editing contributions, I would hope that he would refrain from going ahead with changes that are currently being debated and voted on. --Censorwolf 19:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all users with more than X edits (say 1000) should be whitelisted. The only circumstances under which I'd think it shouldn't whitelist a user we genuinely believe not to be a vandal is when that's a specific sanction (a "thou shalt not mass-move") handed down by the Arbcom. I'd guess that if they knew that technical capacity existed, then that un-whitelisting is something they'd reasonably be expected to apply in a few cases. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering SPUI is involved in a movewar, and is doing Wik-esque things (listing pages to "fix" after 3RR resets, which is NOT the objective of 3RR), I would campaign against whitelisting him for anything, and I say this as a fan of SPUI. --Golbez 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulda left him blocked... he's obviously moving way too fast to be humanly possible. It also doesn't look to me that Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Numbered highways has been adopted. In particular, the Voting shows only a minority favoring (Statename) for disambiguation. This seems like a one-side campaign being waged by bot. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained this to Curps - I go through tabs, paste the reason, go back through the tabs, double click California, hit end, paste " (California)", and hit enter. Please assume good faith. As for the naming conventions, I am simply moving them to fit the current disambiguation conventions, as the name of each route is "State Route X", not "California State Route X". This has nothing to do with the proposed naming conventions, as it is already part of the naming conventions. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is SPUI's explanation back in January of how he does the page moves: [15]. According to him, each one involves a Ctrl-Tab/double-click/Ctrl-V/Enter, all done manually and all four operations taking less than a second in total, and then repeated about seventy times or so non-stop, without any pauses.

The bot doesn't assume good faith or bad faith... it just reacts to a number of triggers. I'm a bit reluctant to permanently whitelist because sometimes even known prolific users go bad or get hijacked (eg, User:Jobe6 recently). It would help if SPUI slowed down a bit. -- Curps 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally achieve the same speeds blocking open/zombie proxies. Given enough tabs and a total fearlessness of Carpal tunnel syndrome, it's humanely possible. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I achieve vast numbers of edits very quickly when I welcome new users. See this slice of my contribs, for example. Firefox tabs are great for quickly repeating actions. --bainer (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iirc, Firefox was also the weapon of choice used by Willy on Wheels, which is the primary reason why Curps' bot is detecting for page move vandalism in the first place. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These moves were done against consensus. See WP:RPP, the above WP:AN/I, WP:NC/NH, User talk:SPUI, Talk:California State Route 17, and many other pages. I am virtually forced to revert them. Other users (who have been frivously accused of socks) would have reverted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why they're currently at "California State Route X"? I mass-moved them about a year ago from "California State Highway X". There were some complaints, but, except for SR 17, it settled down. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus against that then. There is now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benapgar disrupting intelligent design again

Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently back from a 1 month "vacation" for serial NPA vios, is disrupting the intelligent design article. Finding little to no support for a content change, he launched a series of endless rebuttals to force the issue and filed an RFC, but tried to limit participation to only outsiders to the article. To avoid the usual pattern of days of talk page disruption again, I've moved the discussion to a subpage. He's taken exception to this and is now on a rampage. Someone may want to have a gentle word with him. FeloniousMonk 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on his talk page, but knowing Ben, it'll make no difference (and will probably be deleted in short order). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been leaving "notes" at the RFC about editors following their comments: [16] [17] Either he's trolling us, as this would imply [18], or they're meant to discount the comments of those participating in the RFC who also contribute to the article. Either way, they're disruptive. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, some recent edit summaries are dancing around the edge of WP:NPA. He's also started a poll to go with yesterday's RFC: Talk:Intelligent_design/Poll1 If he follows the usual pattern of flouting WP:POINT he'll use the polls results in another attempt to force his POV into the article. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as recent disruption goes, this is fairly bizarre:

[19] FeloniousMonk 02:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated threats from User:Colignatus

User:Colignatus has been making personal attacks and threats against me for reverting his POV, original research contributions in areas where he is personally involved, such as his proposed Borda fixed point voting method. I have asked him twice to stop making threats and warned him that he can be blocked indefinitely for doing so. Tonight, he has made another threat, so he should be blocked.

The threats are that he's going to find an academic superior of mine -- a professor or a dean -- and alert them to my "misconduct" on Wikipedia. Of course, I'm not particularly worried by this threat, but it's still a threat.

I've tried to de-escalate the conflict, by the way; but every time I concede something, he claims it as a victory and uses it as more ammunition for personal attacks. Oh well.

I'm an admin, but it would be inappropriate for me to be the one who blocks him. I'd like someone to block him after looking at his conduct on Talk:Borda fixed point. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a diff in particular where he's attacking you? --InShaneee 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not seeing anything specific so far, but this also disturbs me a bit. He is trying to write to professors that attend schools that also Wikipedians attend, so I think it is a toss-up to wether or not to issue a block. However, I am highly concerned by these edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a recent one with personal attacks and threats all rolled into one: [20]. This is after I warned him that personal attacks and threats would get him blocked, and that was after he had already made such threats twice. This situation is covered by Template:Threatban, by the way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have issued a strongly-worded warning to him. I don't really see any threats, and I'm not willing to block on this basis, although another admin may be. If it happens again, post here or let me know. Stifle 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am willing to block on these grounds. It's totally unacceptable for our contributors to be threatened and harassed in this manner. If he continues after your warning, it's time for a good long block.---Sean Black ^(talk) 20:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JarlaxleArtemis

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#JarlaxleArtemis

Case was closed after JarlaxleArtemis was banned permanently as a result of actions detailed at User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis. →Raul654 17:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2

This user was banned permanently. I request a clarification as to the terms under which he has been allowed to return. He has recently engaged in uncivil behavior and has stated that he refuses to follow the MoS. User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Removing "no source" tag, User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Header capitalization, etc. -Will Beback 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not recently engaged in uncivil behavior, and I have not stated that I refuse to follow the MoS. Why William is lying about this is well beyond me—I have no idea why he is. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not state it, but you engaged in edit warring with multiple users at Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the matter. You have used uncivil terms like "STFU" to other editors. And you have caused further problems with images, removing tags, and improperly using fair use images. These are all behaviors reminiscent of those which led to your previous ArbCom cases. You were permitted to return, if I recall correctly, because you promised not to engage in such behavior. If I'm wrong, please tell us what the circumstances of your return are. -Will Beback 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not engaged in edit warring on Lord Ao. The bot said "RM caps in section headers, minor fixes. using AWB" but didn't mention anything about a Manual of Style stating that as a rule. I said "stfu" to someone because he accused me of vandalism [21] and filled my talk page up with a lot of other garbage. I could have been impolite by saying "shut the fuck up," but I restrained myself. And what is this nonsense about me causing further problems with images? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous ArbCom cases have both concerned your professions of ignorance regarding policies and guidelines, plus other issues. "Requirement_to_read_policies". In this instance, you are well aware of the MOS standard of case in headings, because you complained about it [22] on your first day of editing after the unbanning. As for edit warring in an article, [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. -Will Beback 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To refresh aging memories, can someone explain how Jarlaxle found himself unbanned? Phil Sandifer 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider I've two comments:

The first sentence of this section claimed that JarlaxleArtemis was being blocked permanently. How could he make the comment above?
From my reading of the two arbitration discussions, JarlaxleArtemis doesn't deserve a permanent block. He should be given some more chances to repent. In particular, IMO the faults discussed in the second arb is less serious than that stated in the first arb. This is an evidence showing tht JarlaxleArtemis did try to behave, just not to the expected extent.

--De ryck C. 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is additional info not contained in the ArbCom cases. See User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis. Also he made a series of personal attacks on a member of the Wikimedia board. It was those two incidents which shortcircuited the second ArbCom case and led to his immediate permanent banning. Subsquently he came to an agreement with User:Linuxbeak to stop his bad behavior and to apologize to those he'd offended, and Linuxbeak intervened on his behalf. Whatever agreement they made does not seem to be active, as the complaints are piling up on his talk page again. So I'd like to know what this user's current status is, and if any conditions or paroles are in place. -Will Beback 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block log [30] says that he is being blocked indefinite from September to November, then was unblocked by RedWolf24, who claimed that a probation is still in action. Then he was intermittently blocked for definite short periods due to further misbehaviour, but all of them has expired already. De ryck C. 06:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Linuxbeak's review of his offenses: [31].

Here is Linuxbeak's list of "tasks" that must be performed, which includes an indication that JarlaxleArtemis shall be on parole for a year. [32]

Here is Linuxbeak immediately after the unbanning showing concern over sock puppets: [33].

Here is a request from Linuxbeak in mid-December to write an apology: [34]

Here is JarlaxleArtemis in mid-January selectively deleting all references to his ban or any requirements:[35].

Here is user:Psychonaut stating in mid-February that the requirements are still unfufilled that were due by December 15:[36]

So, again, there appears to be a specific agreement between Linuxbeak and JarlaxleArtemis, but the terms are not clear, Linuxbeak has not been active as a mentor, and JarlaxleArtemis hasn't met his part of the bargain. Will Beback 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, from the block log, I think RedWolf24 is more likely to have an agreement with JarlaxleArtemis, because an admin usually wouldn't lift a permanent block. De ryck C. 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-14/Unbanning and mentorship, and Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee#JarlaxleArtemis. The requirements:

Mediation/Mentorship
A formal apology given to Linuxbeak, Psychonaut, Anthere, NicholasTurnbull and anyone else who he may have caused harm
Repair any damage caused by acts of sockpuppetry/impersonation on other Wikis
A probationary period for as long as his defunct ArbCom case originally had set as the penal period (one year)

Until he has completed these requirements from November, the middle two in particular, perhaps he should not be editing. I appreciate the Linuxbeak has endeavored to mentor, and has done so after a remarkable show of forgiveness on his part. However JarlaxleArtemis appears to have ignored the process. Now that we've unravelled the case, it appears to not require ArbCom clarification. I suggest we move this thread to AN. -Will Beback 07:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per that agreement, Jarlaxle is on probation, which can be enforced by any uininvolved admin. If this is an enforcement problem, we need to get some admins to look at this. As well, he's put under mentors, who are given free reign to stop his disruption by necessary means; if the mentors have left or resigned, or forgotten him, then we need some new ones. If you think it is beyond that point, then what is probably needed is just some consensus on ANI to reban him without arbcom intervention. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redwolf24's involvement was as a member of the WP:MENTCOM. The agreements were negotiated by Linuxbeak, and the Mentorship Committee created subsequently to provide oversight; Redwolf24 was one of the principal founders of the MentCom, and involved with most of it's cases. To my knowledge (and I was in the loop on most of what he did), he didn't have any part in Linuxbeak's negotiations. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC) This post intended to respond to Deryck Chan's comment that "RedWolf24 is more likely to have an agreement with JarlaxleArtemis," not to suggest that the assigned mentors should be the ones to handle the matter and/or that other administrators should not intervene. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is user:Redwolf24 active currently? user:Linuxbeak has been on intermittent wikibreaks, and the other two appointed mentors have not been involved noticeably. Unless someone from the Mentcom wants to get involved then I think the admins will have to do it. Personally, I think completing his unbanning requirements should be a pre-condition for editing, but someone else can make that determination. -Will Beback 08:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, by the way, interpret the terms of the agreement to be that only the mentors can enforce the probation. Rather, any admin can, especially with ANI consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So our current conclusion is, somebody unblocked him, and he's back. So what's next? I can't see any proposed action here. It looks like a page of evidence more than a request for clarification. De ryck C. 08:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per my earlier suggestion, I've moved it to AN/I. Any admin (or mediator) may respond. -Will Beback 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlaxle is not a banned user per se. Linuxbeak took it upon himself to try to rehabilitate Jarlaxle into the Wikipedia community, and Jimbo gave it an official "ok, why not, let's see if it works." So treat Jarlaxle like any user for the moment - David Gerard 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a banned user, but one whose ban was lifted with certain requirements, who is on parole, and who is engaging in the same behaviors that brought him to the ArbCom twice. -Will Beback 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really followed recent developments concerning Jarlaxle, but I did see some of his harassment of Linuxbeak a few months ago, and I think that it was very good of Linuxbeak to welcome him back, and it's disappointing that it doesn't seem to be working out. AnnH ♫ 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxbeak wrote on December 8, " The written apology that you agreed to as part of your unbanning will be due no later than December 15th at 00:00 UTC. A late submission will be allowed, but you will be banned from editing starting at December 15th with the exception of your user space." [37] We know that the apologies were never written. Is there any reason why the user should not be blocked, pursuant to his agreement? -Will Beback 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely because he has failed to write his written apology before December 15, 2005, as per the unbanning agreement. He may be unblocked as soon as he submits the apology, provided he's still acting reasonably. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we frown upon demanding apologies? Phil Sandifer 05:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, though it was a condition of the unbanning agreement that Linuxbeak brokered. Ral315 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a point to question against Phroziac's act. Did you re-notify Jarlaxle about the previous-made agreement on unbanning and give him another fortnight or so of deadline before you reinstated the block? It would be unfair to Jarlaxle if he wasn't blocked in December for failing to comply with the agreement, did many rational things throughout the months, and suddenly got blocked because he forgot to do something three months ago, without even giving him a prior notice. Consider my comment void if anyone can show that Jarlaxle is given a 14-day period of notification before being blocked. --De ryck C. 12:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you re-read the statement that Linuxbeak wrote on his talk page in December, you can see Jarlaxle was told that if he did not complete the requirement in a week he would be blocked until he did. That is now a three month period of notice. You can also see that he selectively deleted that notice a month later, indicating he was aware of it. Furthermore, in reviewing this case I've seen many examples of harmful behavior, witnessed by the complaints on his talk page and his edit warring on articles like Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Drow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Even after he has completed these requirements he may be blocked or banned totally or partially on account of violating parole by edit warring, etc. Lastly, he is now questioning some details about his parole, and disputing some of the allegations about his actions. Taken together, I don't think that this editor has successfully reformed. -Will Beback 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defiance of Arbcom on Rajput

I am utterly certain that User:10 000 thundering typhoons and User:Stephanian are both sock-puppets of User:Shivraj Singh, who has been banned by this Arbcom decision from further activity on the Rajput page. I am suffering ad hominen attacks, baseless allegations and attempts at intimidation on the Talk:Rajput page. I request perma-banning of both. Regards, ImpuMozhi 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a sockcheck was "inconclusive" since many new accounts appear to be from their ISP. But I share ImpuMozhi's impression that these users are almost certainly socks, since they conveniently and seamlessly continue the banned user's "campaign". Don't assume good faith to the point of absurdity. dab (ᛏ) 15:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP conststant vandalism...

Please check 66.30.63.147 Nothing but Vandalism KsprayDad 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If vandalism still doesn't stop after warning, report at WP:AIV. Note that we can't block IPs indefinitely, unless it is an open proxy. Thanks! :) - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RJII violating probation

RJII is violating his probation on Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. He is consistently adding wrong and POV information which he knows is POV, I can only assume, in order to provoke me to violate 3RR. I believe this violates WP:NPOV and WP:POINT.

For example:

Adds point which he fully knows is POV
- False. This is sourceable. In fact, after you complained about it, I inserted it with a source. [38] RJII 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Now that he's got me banned from there, he goes in and deletes the SOURCED information!:[reply]
  - That is one person's POV. You worded it as if it was a true fact. I merely moved it to another place and NPOVd it. It is source number three in the referneces. -- infinity0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[39] THIS IS HIS TACTIC TO GET AROUND WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON SOURCING. RJII 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes "many" to "communist" which he knows is false
- False. I was making the statement more precise. There are no individualist anarchists that says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I provided a source on the talk page stating that individualist anarchists avoid calling themselves anarcho-capitalists and that such anarchist oppose capitalism. -- infinity0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes "do" to "do not", which he knows is false
- I strongly disagree that most anarchists think anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Note that his claim wasn't sourced either --there was a request for a source at the end of the sentence. RJII 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes "many" to "communist" which he knows is false
- He has no source to claim anyone but communist anarchists make this claim. Again, I was making the sentence more precise. There ARE sources for communist anarchists saying that, but not for individualist anarchists. RJII 20:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attributes a claim to "communists" which he knows is false
- Again, communists anarchists complain about "heirarchy." Individualist anarchists don't. I was making the statement more precise. RJII 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done wrong here? NOTHING. RJII 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screw this, RJII. This page is large enough already. If you have any replies put them on my talk page. -- infinity0 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- infinity0 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to ban him from this article (but not its talk page, of course) for two weeks and let things settle down. If another admin wants to undo me, go right ahead. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have permission to revert to [40] and make the necessary edits (ie. remove occurences of "communism") to remove the POV? -- infinity0 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't permission to edit; be bold. Use your common sense, though, and try not to provoke anyone. (Keep in mind that if you've been reverting a couple of his edits as you go, you might violate the 3RR with another revert. I haven't checked. I can't, however, absolve you from that rule if you're in danger of breaking it.) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention. Remember to assume good faith; do you really have evidence that he's trying to goad you into a 3RR vio? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got ahead of myself. A similar thing has happened before, and I just put two and two together. -- infinity0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attack by a very disruptive individual. infinity has been engaging in massive edit warring, putting in false information with no or non-credible source, etc. Why don't you take a look at the edit history of what he's doing on that article? He's destroying it. The charges he's making against me are false. You just accept what he says on face value? This is his tactic. If he can't get away with POV pushing he complains against me, no research is done to see if his claims are true, and I'm banned. It's B.S. RJII 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII, stop being so damned paranoid. I'm not out to get you. -____________________________________- -- infinity0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're an extremely disruptive editor. It's obvious that you are out to get me. You want me banned so that you can tailor the article to your POV and delete my SOURCED edits. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. You're taking advantage of the fact that I am on "probation" knowing that all you have to do is complain and nobody checks up on your complaints. RJII 20:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII, have you forgotten WP:CIVIL? Calling for someone to be banned, regardless of merit, is a clear violation of civility. If you continue doing that, don't be surprised if YOU are the one who earns a ban. --TML1988 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infinity's word should be be trusted at face value. Look at his attempt at adminiship. The Wikipedia community rejected it realizing how disruptive he is: Infinity0Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 He's been engaging in edit warring, personal attacks, multiple 3RR violations, deleting sourced info. This complain of his is just another element of his disruption to try to get his way. RJII 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "disruptive" does not appear on that page. Please stop editorialising. Also, see above bolded comment. -- infinity0 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII, I know of that RfA. I even voted on it. I voted oppose. However, it's completely irrelevant here. I looked at the situation, and judged it the best I could. Infinity's past transgressions and rejected RfA are immaterial. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what IS material? What have I done wrong? There is nothing wrong with putting in sourced information. And there is nothing wrong with making statements more precise so they don't mislead the reader. RJII 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, precision, and NPOV of your edits were disputed. You knew they were disputed; Infinity disputed them on your talk page. You forged ahead anyway. That's what was disruptive, and what merited the ban. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. The edits that were THERE were disputed. I changed them BECAUSE they were disputed. infinity writes very very POV and his edits need fixing. I was doing the article a service. And, I'm banned for it. It's ludicrous. RJII 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to just get a new account and start afresh. I'm tired of this "probation" being used against me by infinity. All a POV pusher had to do is COMPLAIN and I'm banned. That's how they can get around censoring the sourced information I put in an article. The system is horrible. (And, by the way, the probation is a result of the same type of thing; to try to get me banned they scoured over a years worth of edits for anything that could be construed as a "personal attack") RJII 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOCK. --AaronS 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a first, usually you just wait for woohookitty to ban you before you make a new sockpuppet, or go on a 6 month break, or just go pagemove happy, whatever, guess your "close down wikipedia by pulling the funding" plan didn't pan out, can't wait to meet your next sock!--205.188.116.65 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I REQUEST TO BE UNBANNED. FIXING POV PROBLEMS IN AN ARTICLE IS NOT A CRIME. RJII 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's that "class action lawsuite" coming? Not so well I guess--205.188.116.65 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? RJII 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson12 indefinitely blocked.

I blocked Anderson12 indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Basil Rathbone, and therefore of Lightbringer. I refer to CheckUser evidence, as well as this image, which was uploaded by Basil Rathbone earlier. I appreciate discussion on this block. Ral315 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day makes a POINT

Check out this]. D-Day seems to be violating WP:POINT. We've had previous "humorous" nominations of userboxes that blew up into flames. His actions can be interpreted as not so subtle attacks on people trying to seriously resolve the issue for the good of Wikipedia. Instead of respect that, he's just making fun. TfD shouldn't be played around with (except on April 1). --Cyde Weys 20:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism (again) from IP: 216.174.135.162

Vandlism continues from 216.174.135.162. Most recently on Repetitive strain injury which I have now reverted three times in the last hour. The IP talk page shows a long history of vandalism and therefore I put this IP forward for your consideration. User_talk:216.174.135.162. I appreciate your time. Oliver Keenan 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue {{test4}} template, then list on WP:AIV if vandalism still does not stop. It's a school IP, so I guess some kids are being naughty today! :P - Mailer Diablo 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Infinity0

Infinity is being extremely disruptive and destructive to the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article. He is edit warring (take a look at the history of edits). He requests sources for information, then when they're presented he deletes the information (see the talk page there). He goes against consensus. When the others agree to separate a section into headers, he deletes them, etc. Someone needs to put a stop to his edit warring. His recent request for adminship failed because of this kind of stuff. [Infinity0Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 But, he's still at it on that article. What can be done? RJII 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else agreed to separate the sections; I even helped to separate out the sections, and now the article does indeed have sections. I have not edit warred on that article today; we made edits to separate sections at a time. You provided one source out of the many edits you made, and that was the one I kept. Even so, that sourced edit of yours was POV and I had to NPOV it. My RfA failed mainly because of two recent 3RRs, both against you. I am not going to make the same mistake again. -- infinity0 21:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mislead people. You've been egaging in MASSIVE edit warring. Do you want me to go in and pick out all your 3RR violations? RJII 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that for you. Here is my block log. Starting from the bottom:

Editing in China, used a proxy
Ultramarine reported me for 3RR even though I explained all my reversions and they were reversions of different text.
Steve block caught us reverting each other's edits on Anarchism
You reported me for giving up trying to reach consensus at Anarcho-capitalism

One edit war, with you. -- infinity0 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm reporting you. You're edit-warring, misreprenting sources to maintain POV, deleting sourced information, etc. You already got me banned from the article trying to fix the things you were screwing up. If I'm banned you certainly should be banned. Any administrator can see your antics by viewing the history pages: [41] Why I'm banned and you're not is a mystery. RJII 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacrosse

user:Jacrosse has repeatedly removed tags without discussion, and has been told to stop repeatedly by a variety of editors. Following this editthat once again removed tags from Neoconservatism without even an edit summary, I blocked his account for 24 hours. -Will Beback 21:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole

Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed dispute tags that I placed on Leet (language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He's not at all participated in the content dispute, nor helped in any way to solve it. I feel like, because of past experiences, his actions are only in opposition to me, personally. Removal of dispute tags in this way is considered Vandalism, which I've warned him about several times. I'd prefer if some neutral admin would look into this and see if a block is warranted (he's removed them five times in the last day), or at least a stern warning followed by a block if he persists further. When there is a content dispute, it is imperitive that we clearly note that, both as a warning to readers and to editors who want to paricipate in the solution. -- Netoholic @ 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also considered vandalism to misuse dispute tags, which I believe you are doing. Further, administrators should be aware that Netoholic has violated his ArbCom imposed 1RR. But regarding dispute tags, quoting Wikipedia:Vandalism (under Improper use of dispute tags)–

Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.

He's the only one disputing the article right now, and I find it hard to believe one person can be allowed to place tags like this indefinitely until they get their way. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now... I think admins can read WP:VAND themselves, but here is the part Locke left out:

Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.

As for his 1RR claim, the Arbitrators have clarified to not apply that literally. Besides, reverting vandalism does not count. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators have made clear your bans and limitations should apply if you're being disruptive. This is just such a case. You've been shown sources that satisfy the claim that "Leet" is a language. You've been offered a reasonable compromise (which, frankly, you did not deserve given your attitude). And what do people get for their trouble? You slap {{farc}} on it, getting it demoted from featured article, then when that doesn't get you your way, you decide to slap dispute tags on it. You're being a dick. Knock it off. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you - knock it off until someone can review this. Going at each other's throats now, and here at the ANI, does nothing. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:37 UTC (2006-03-11)

Without wanting to fall into the trap of becoming NSLE's reviewer (ick! No! Messy!), could I just make one quick appeal? Please, please, please — let's see no more of this "you know, technically, if you read the wording in exactly the right way, this could be considered a form of vandalism?"! Either Netoholic's wrong, or Locke Cole's wrong. Pulling in project pages that clearly have nothing to do with the case weakens your position and increases the average amount of wikilawyering 'round here, and that's always a Bad Thing. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear opinions as to whether this dispute (which includes Neto and Locke, as well as myself to some degree) should be rolled into the current RfAr (which Neto requested), or instead should be its own RfAr. I suspect that many of the same issues will be brought up (behavior of parties involved), but at the core is a fundamentally different issue. Mediation has been attempted, and has failed. I ask not because I want to stir opinion (or yes, Neto, to poison the well), but because I am not familiar enough with the process. It seems to me, also, that it would be a real pain in the ass for all of us involved to be handling two such processes at once. Opinions? ... aa:talk 03:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theodore7

In his first edit in a long while, Theodore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made what appeared to me a set of clear and vicious personal attacks on User:PL. A recent ArbCom ruling against Theodore7 included a standard personal attack parole, and I blocked him for a week under that. Which has led to him describing (on his talk page) my campaign of harassment and one-sidedness, etc. In the spirit of fair play, I welcome any and all to review my actions and unblock if they feel any inclination to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good block- That edit is a very clear (not to mention egregious), violation of his personal attack parole.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as someone starts educating another user about the difference in their liability for either slander or libel, I start reaching for my "put user on first train out of here" button. But a return ticket for a week's time is fair enough. Note that Theodore7 has now used up the "last chance saloon" part of his remedy, and that admins are empowered to block him indefinitely for any further violations, without needing to refer to the ArbCom. He has also, in that cited diff, failed to provide an edit summary and used up the first of his 5 such edit summaries on the road to a year-long block for that alone. -Splash^talk 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Theodore7 (conservatively) for one week for making legal threats. Please note that, as I point out here, he clearly does know the "no legal threats" policy—he quotes from it (!). He's very ready for an indefinite block, but for now, I have merely added together the three blocks issued today, by Vsmith, Bunchofgrapes, and myself, for one week each, for quite separate violations, and thus blocked Theodore7 for three weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake, Vsmith's block was from last month. OK, Theo is blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Repeat (and how!) vandalism at Julie Andrews

Someone at a third IP now is trying to get this link on Julie Andrews. This page pruports to have information about a "secret son" but, like so many other Internet message boards, its sources are dubious if not nonexistent, and much of its content could be considered by many people to be offensive. Can this link be added to the WikiBlacklist? Thanks Radio Kirk talk to me 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Ditto for this unsourced blog along the same lines? Someone else now is trying to add this one... Radio Kirk talk to me 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a spoonful of sprotect makes the medicine go down... · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thank you :) If I may, though, Wikiblacklisting the URLs might be more permanent? ;) Radio Kirk talk to me 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-95 exit list

(since apparently editing disputes are okay on this page now) There already exist more accurate exit lists on several articles such as Interstate 95 in New Jersey, and thus the page was edited to link to those to avoid a content fork. Several editors are reverting this for no apparent reason. I listed it on RFC, and got one response agreeing with me. It keeps being reverted to the fork. Something needs to be done. OMG ARBCOM SANCTIONS. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well but you're ignoring the fact that on your talk page and the article talk page we've requested for you to not do what you've been doing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the fact that Wikipedia:Fork asks you not to do what you're been doing. Please read that page until you understand why forks are bad. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI is actually right here - article forks are generally a violation of or attempt to get around NPOV, which is a policy that no group of editors can form "consensus" amongst themselves to ignore - David Gerard 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Different stance"? This is an exit list- how can it be POV? The exits are what they are. It's like accusing someone of POV on Wikisource. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theodore7 again

I have blocked Theodore7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) indefinitely for legal threats and protected his user talk page until the issue is resolved. I ask for other admins to review my actions and, if necessary, reverse them. The relevant discussion is on his UT page. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Security issue?

Squidward has posted this URL: [42] to website, of which he spams the URL about the 'pedia (in edit summaries, hence not deletable]. Anything do be done about about that? Herostratus 01:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Continued Vandalism

Hi, I'm just writing to report vandalism that seems to occur quite a bit on featured articles. It seems the vandal seems to have fun changing his username every time he vandalizes the article. This usually happens for about 12 posts, then he stops. I'm not sure if the IP Address has been blocked yet or not, but it's something to consider. To see a history of his edits, just look at today's featured article.

Once again I am not sure if he/she has been blocked. If they have been, I am sorry to report it! Thanks again!

Cheesehead Fan 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing new, to be honest. And since almost every FA is hit hard, it's almost impossible to trace who is who. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above users are vandalising and propogating false information on all Iran/Persian related articles. They are posting false information. Nothing they have edited includes fact, it has all been lies and propoganda. They are just racist against Iranian people and Wikipedia must not allow them to post their opinions here as fact!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs)

Can you please provide links to diffs, or at the very least the specific articles, in question? Stifle 02:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Administrator Jim Duffy (author)

I made a factual edit to Dr. Duffy's article based on information he had posted to his Wikipedia User page here. For whatever reason, User:Jtdirl (Dr. Jim Duffy (author) edited his own article and reversed my edit in contravention of Wikipedia principles and as recently reiterated by Jimbo Wales. - Ted Wilkes 02:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the discussion on Talk:Jim Duffy (author)#Protection indicates that it is disputed as to whether or not Jtdirl is in fact Jim Duffy because he has not officially admitted it. Secondly, you should use information from credible third party sources insted of something off of a Wikipedia user page anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors at Wikipedia rely on User:Jtdirl as he has repeatedly stated he is a historian and made assertions on various topics based on a claim to be an "academic" with a PhD degree from the National University of Ireland and that he is a published author (both history and fiction). He asserted these things as a fact for a long time on his User page as seen here. People need and have a right to know if he has lied about his credentials or not as they in fact have depended on his advice based on his asserted qualifications. As a Wikipedia Administrator, I'm certain he will want to state that he is or is not Jim Duffy (author). After all, he created the Duffy article. - Ted Wilkes 03:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, User:Ted Wilkes is frequently gaming the system. He did this several times in the past. Most people may remember his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. There is much evidence that he is identical with multi-hardbanned User:DW. For a summary of facts supporting this view, see [43]. Wilkes was blocked for one week by administrator Jtdirl. This kind of contribution seems to be his personal reaction. Onefortyone 04:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jim Duffy = jtdirl" is something Skyring was convinced of to the point of obsession, and spread over Wikipedia as far as he could - it's not actually documented in the wider world. Jtdirl emails to wikien-l as "Thom Cadden", fwiw - David Gerard 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But he used to sign as Jim Duffy. Jonathunder 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, thank you for pointing out Jtdirl's use of the alias Thom Cadden because here he calls himself James Duffy and as Jonathunder says, also as Jim Duffy. Jtdirl has a record of edit warring, at times bordering on histrionics to the point where Duffy repeats that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder accused him of "historical revisionism." Here he calls other editors work "nonsense" and "garbage" and adds that: "Sometimes the low standards on Wikipedia give me the creeps." - Ted Wilkes 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that particular bit of editing he was talking about was rather poor, and I don't see how those comments at all relevant here. It's a long way from where you started this thread. Are you going through all of his edits or something? If so, for what purpose? Jonathunder 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TKH Mebo

This user has a problematic User page to begin with, and has only been here since March 7, spending most of his/her time making edits eerily similar to those of Bobblewik. I almost blocked him, but thought I'd bring it here first for discussion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a wiki, right? Why not just edit is userpage? Stifle 03:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of other people's User pages is generally frowned upon. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the general principle of user page integrity, but this is clearly just for shock value (it was a whole lotta boobs, if anyone cares). I've removed the images for now, and warned the user not to POINT. --bainer (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure User:Thebainer's edits are among the permissible exceptions to User:Zoe's "generally frowned upon" :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Duce Bohogren

Why is this person still editing when he was indefinitely blocked on March 9?

20:11, March 10, 2006 Zoe deleted "Talk:Schmeedisum" (recreation of deleted nonsense)
17:01, March 9, 2006 Obli deleted "Talk:Schmeedisum" (talk page of deleted article)
Page history<br?

19:50, March 10, 2006 . . Duce Bohogren 

17:00, March 9, 2006 . . Calton (db-reason|Talk page of deleted and recreation-protected article) 

16:54, March 9, 2006 . . Duce Bohogren 

16:36, March 9, 2006 . . Duce Bohogren

User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block; The edit. That is really weird... Is there a developer in the house? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view your second link, but his contributions list shows that he last edited on the 9th. --BWD^(talk) 03:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His last edit was five minutes ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see him editing talk page edits, do it looks like a person can edit any User and article talkpage edits even while banned --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Talk page that he edited, see the links I provided above. Blocked users should only be able to edit their own Talk pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a quick account that was even more quickly blocked (good heads up, User:Freakofnurture!). While I was banned, I could not edit anything anywhere (just as its supposed to be). This user's ability must be some kind of weird glitch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to edit your own talk page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson_Ban_Test_to_see_something I didn't try my own because thats the only one I could have... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ungovernable Force

This guy has been harrassing me. He vandalized my user page with a "fuck you." [44] RJII 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was a month ago and has been dealt with already. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. This is the first time I've reported it. He should be penalized. I want justice done. (By the way, I think BorgHunter and Ungovernable Force are apparently buddies) You shouldn't be protecting him from punishment. RJII 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, this is the first time I have encountered this user. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen his/her name around, but I have no memory of every interacting with BorgHunter before today. The Ungovernable Force 07:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being protective? What does it matter to you if he's banned for a day or so? You just banned more for two weeks from an article when I did absolutely nothing wrong, based on a mere bogus complaint from an edit-warring POV-pusher. It's obvious you have a bias against me. You should step out of the way and let an uninvolved administrator handle this. RJII 05:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove to me that there's any justice at all on Wikipedia. It's proved to me over and over against that there's not. It's all about who you know. The system is corrupt. RJII 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say I am actually high up in the echelons of the wikiadmins? A quick look at my userpage and manifesto show I am pretty out of step with many of the people in power here. The Ungovernable Force 07:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's your uninvolved admin. WTF? This happened over a month ago. Get over it. android 79 06:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It slipped my mind. I'm reporting it today. RJII 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's too bad. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. No one's going to block someone for a month-old personal attack. android 79 06:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the time factor be relevant? Either he vandalized my page with "fuck you" or he didn't. Because it was done a month ago, it means it's ok? I disagree. I'm not aware of any policy that says time passing is an excuse for this kind of thing. RJII 06:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're currently in the middle of a disagreement with this editor (which of you, if either, is in the right, I have no idea) and so you're pulling up a month-old affront and trying to get him punished for it. See laches. If it didn't piss you off enough a month ago to say something about it, and you continued to engage him in dialogue thereafter, well, basically, that's too bad. Besides, the worst that would have happened would someone would post on his talk page "Don't do that", since he doesn't have a history of unpleasant behaviour. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, two people did tell me not to do that at the time, including a friend of mine and I have not made any other such edits since and have no plans of continuing. Also, I have actually avoided conflict with this user for the most part since then, but I noticed this [[45] edit today and brought it to borghunters attention since he/she had blocked RJII from editing the anarchism page recently (And I assumed this was the edit war refered to in the message). I suggested RJII be further blocked due to his/her willingness to continue engaging in the edit war that got him/her blocked in the first place. RJII claimed their girlfriend made the edit, so I am dropping this issue. I am just trying to show why it is RJII is now so intent to block me for something I did a month ago and have since shown regret for. Also, see the talkpages of myself, RJII and BorgHunter for more info. I would also like to mention that RJII has a long history of personal attacks and accussing others of harrasment him/herself (he/she accused me of harrasment months ago for trying to get him/her to apologize for and stop making impolite comments towards other editors and myself on the anarchism talkpage). My inappropriate edit was my one time lashing out in frustration at this user, and I have since committed to never do such things (and have stayed true to this, even though I really wanted to break it during the userbox debates). That is all I have to say about this for now. The Ungovernable Force 07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I did rebuke User:The Ungovernable Force for that edit, and while it was lamentable, it didn't seem to be part of a pattern of vandalism. *Both* User:The Ungovernable Force and User:RJII have deliberately antagonized one another since then -- I have no clue whether TUF's subsequent apology to RJII was sincere, and frankly don't care to know, as long as they stop trying to get one another banned. It's frustrating to have my only local known Wikipedian pop up on WP:ANI =P

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 09:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa

Previous incident reports:
Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/01#October 2005 -Ich bin ein Berliner
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive46#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.

Previously identified sock accounts/IPs:

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Shran
12.72.78.30 (talk · contribs)
155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs)
201.240.119.26 (talk · contribs)
203.61.246.14 (talk · contribs)
211.30.26.251 (talk · contribs)
24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs)
38.114.48.102 (talk · contribs)
38.114.52.98 (talk · contribs)
68.115.183.34 (talk · contribs)
70.252.26.105 (talk · contribs)
AnimalFarm1 (talk · contribs)
Can'tStandYa (talk · contribs)
CaptainJackWill (talk · contribs)
DadoCut (talk · contribs)
DonnaReed (talk · contribs)
EinBerliner (talk · contribs)
Katrina&TheWaves (talk · contribs)

KnightsOfMalta (talk · contribs)
LesbianLatke (talk · contribs)
LittleDeadBuddy (talk · contribs)
LordCornwall (talk · contribs)
N1Arch1 (talk · contribs)
OberstKlink (talk · contribs)
ObsoleteMedia (talk · contribs)
Prohibit0nions (talk · contribs) (Note: not User:ProhibitOnions, but an impostor)
Quadralobal (talk · contribs)
Seka'sBreathMints (talk · contribs)
Shran (talk · contribs)
Smegmann (talk · contribs)
Stalingrad (talk · contribs)
TonyTheTerrier (talk · contribs)
WehrWolf (talk · contribs)
YvaBraun (talk · contribs)

Current suspected sock accounts/IPs:
24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs)="24"
155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs)="155"
Ashton Coochter (talk · contribs)="AC"
CantStandYa (talk · contribs)="CSY"
NoBloodForEarl (talk · contribs)="NBFE"
Ordrestjean (talk · contribs)="O"
Peckerwood (talk · contribs)="P"
WolframSiever (talk · contribs)="WS"
WhiskyWhiskers (talk · contribs)="WW"
WOOKIEwantMEDAL (talk · contribs)=""WWM"

Additional suspects ()
24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs): Comcast, Texas
66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="204"
66.98.131.200 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="200"
67.15.76.110 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="110"
67.15.76.185 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="185"
67.15.76.188 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="188"
67.15.76.232 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="232
67.15.76.242 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="242"
70.84.56.185 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "56.185"
70.84.56.172 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "172"
70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "166""
70.85.195.239 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas ="239"
70.85.195.138 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "138"
And:
66.98.130.128 ="128"
66.98.130.159 ="159"
66.98.130.224 ="224"
67.15.76.187 ="187"
67.15.76.244 = "244"
67.15.77.161 ="161"
70.84.56.165 ="165"
70.85.195.225 ="225"
70.85.195.230 ="230"

Sample of articles which have been edited by more than one current account. *Conspicuous edit warring.

100 People Who Are Screwing Up America*, 24, 155, CSY, WS, WW, 242, 232, 204, 224
Anti-hero, 24, 155, CSY, P,
Appalachia, 24, 155, CSY,
Black Watch, 24, 155, CSY, WW
Bleeding Kansas WW, WWM
Carpetbagger, 24, 155, AC, WS
Category:Scottish-Americans, 155, CSY, WS
Caucasoid, CSY, P, WS,
Centurion (Roman army)*, 24, O
Common phrases based on stereotypes, 24, 155, CSY
Comintern, AC, O, WWM
Cylon (Battlestar Galactica), 24, CSY, WS,
Doughnut , 24, 155, P, WW,
Festivus, 24, 155,
Flags of the Confederate States of America*, 24, 155, CSY
Granola*, 24, P, WW
Hillbilly, 155, P, WW
Jane Fonda*, 155, CSY, O, WW, WWM
Kilt*, 24, 155, CSY, WW
Knights Hospitaller, 24, 155, O
Kwanzaa, 24, AC, 239, 242, 232, 225, 244
List of Eagle Scouts, 24, 155, CSY
List of ethnic slurs, 24, 155, CSY
List of pejorative political puns, 24, 155, AC, P, WW,
List of political epithets*, 24, 155, AC, CSY, P, WW, WS, WWM

List of political epithets*, 24, 155, AC, CSY, P, WW, WS, WWM
List of sexual slurs/old, 24, 155, AC, CSY
Magical Negro, 24, 155, CSY,
Mason-Dixon line, 24, WW
Peter Pan syndrome, WS, WWM
Post-Adolescent Narcissism WS, WWM
Reconstruction, 24, 155, AC, CSY, P, WW,
Redneck, 24, 155, AC, P, WW
Rus' (people), 24, 155, CSY, NBFE, WW
Scottish people, 24, 155, P, WW
Scots-Irish American, 24, 155, P, WW,
Sherman's March to the Sea, P, NBFE
Sodom and Gomorrah, 24, 155, O
State terrorism, 155, NBFE
Tartan Day, 155, CSY, P
Ted Kennedy*, 24, 155, 159
Texas Medal of Valor, 24, 155, CSY, O
Useful idiot, 24, 155, AC, WS, WWM
Water buffalo incident*, 24, 155
White cracker, 24, 155, WW, P,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs (2nd nomination), AC, WS, WW
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 19, CSY, P, WW
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 21, CSY, WS
Wikipedia:Speedy deletions WS [46], WWM [47]

Pat Tillman, 172, 188, 185, 204
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 138, 242, 232, 56.185, 200, 204, 187, 159, 244
Jay Rockefeller, 166, 172, 242, 188, 56.185, 204, 224, 244
John Kerry*, 138, 239, 166, 172, 185, 232, 188, 56.185, 110, 200, 204, 224, 165, 187, 167, 159, 244
Killian documents, 239, 188, 232
Movement to impeach George W. Bush*, 138, 172, 232, 188, 185, 204, 165, 159, 244
Winter Soldier Investigation, 110, 204, 185, 188, 159
Ron Karenga* 185, 204, 224, 165, 187, 167, 230, 232, 225, 244
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Fred Bauder, 204, 159, 188

Editors who have posted warnings or complaints to the current accounts:

172 (talk · contribs)
Andrea Parton (talk · contribs)
Christiaan (talk · contribs)
Dante Alighieri (talk · contribs)
EngineerScotty (talk · contribs)
Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
Genidealingwithfairuse (talk · contribs)
Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)
Harmil (talk · contribs)
Husnock (talk · contribs)
Hyacinth (talk · contribs)
Jayjg (talk · contribs)
Jossi (talk · contribs)
Lbmixpro (talk · contribs)

Proposed action:
"Shran" could be a more valued contributor if he would stop using sock puppets to edit war. He has been asked repeatedly by editors including myself to stick to one account. The user, through various accounts, has protested that the IPs are either open to many users, or are used by a "little brother" or "brother-in-law". Despite these claims the edits are clearly the work of one person. The previous set of sock puppet accounts was blocked by me and others in the fall of 2005, and a new set has been created since then. As with previous socks, these accounts have been used to abuse consensus and even to pile-on votes in CfDs and an AfD. As we did before, I propose that we block all the current sock accounts indefinitely while leaving one account open for editing, User:CantStandYa. I'd appreciate hearing input from members of the community on this user and on my proposed action. Are there any other known accounts for the user? Have there been any other editing problems? Are there any other measures, beyond blocking the obvious socks, that we should pursue? How can we get this prolific editor to follow community norms? -Will Beback 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Stbalbach's research, it appears that this user has also been using a number of dial-up accounts. Short-term range blocks may also be necessary to manage this sock-puppetry. -Will Beback 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that many of these accounts are sockpuppets (I simply haven't checked them all). I recommend dealing with the issue by blocking all by the main account, and then selectively sprotecting the articles in question, if IP editing or sockpuppeting continues, but I welcome other input. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. Hearing no objections, I will block the registered accounts except User:CantStandYa. I will semiprotect articles on which these IPs are seen to edit in the future. -Will Beback 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII Banned from AN & AN/I

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug#RJII placed on probation as clarified on RfAr Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RJII probation, I have banned RJII (talk · contribs) from posting to the Administrators Noticeboard or Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, or the talk pages thereof, for a period of three months. Also, given Dmcdevit's suggestion, I am opening a dialogue on a full ban under the general probation clause, for a period of not less than one month. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might tell us exactly what actions have led to this? I know I could hunt for them, but this would be the appropriate place (or at least a pointer.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I gave two links when requesting clarification, specifically [48] and [49] , which I thought were good, recent examples of disruption.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the current version of this page is filled with RJII harassing others and otherwise disrupting the page. Do a "find" search on RJII; nearly every instance of his signature appearing on this page is prefaced by some sort of disruption. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me admin #2. I've tried to be reasonable to him, but he has disrupted nearly every article he has touched, including ANI. I support two weeks as a general cool down period. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider me admin #3, and I'm willing to support a ban of anywhere from two weeks to three months. Ral315 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given this, I am blocking RJII for two weeks as a two week general ban per his probation. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Mondeo

I have messed up the formatting slightly when adding important data on trim levels - can an admin fix it for me? --Sunfazer (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important data on trim levels? Oxymoron alert! Just zis Guy you know? 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs)

68.110.9.62 is making plenty of personal attacks via edit summaries, but while I've warned by {{npa3}} (and will block if I see another one of these), I am finding it difficult to sort through his/her edits to figure out what is vandalism/POV and what is not (particularly since I'm not accustomed to being up this early :-)). Can folks look through them and make calls on what should be reverted and what should not? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After more personal attacks and a clear vandalism of England, I've blocked him/her for a week and decided that this user's edits are sufficiently unreliable that I reverted all of his/her top edits. Some of it might be correct information, but this user deliberately inserts false information as well, and with no confidence that this user edits in good faith, I decided that the safest routine is to remove them. Obviously, this doesn't eliminate any false info that the user inserted as non-top edits. :-( --Nlu (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This IP's editing pattern strongly resembles that of User:Kenneth Alan and his reincarnations User:Kenneth Alansson, User:Borderer, User:Frontiersman, and probably several more. Kenneth Alan was banned by the arbcom for a year on October 2, 2004. Before the expiry of that block he apparently edited under a different name, and his block was extended to March 2006. Later, after more sockpuppetry, it was extended to May 2006. If others concur that 68.110.9.62 is indeed Kenneth Alan then his block should be extended to March 12th 2007, that fact noted on user:Kenneth Alan, and his further contributions be reverted on sight. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of referenced material from Holodomor by Irpen (talk · contribs)

Irpen continues deleting referenced material from the Holodomor article. Recent deletions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=43255029&oldid=43250760

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=42929948&oldid=42920697

There are facts, numbers, list of countries that acknowledged Holodomor. The article has been protected several times to avoid revert wars. There is a very long discussion on the talk page, which led to nothing. Referenced facts continue to be deleted by that user. I am out of ideas on how to convince Irpen to stop these deletions.--Andrew Alexander 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see why that discussion went nowhere: it didn't get the result you wanted. Repeatedly re-inserting images with disputed copyright status is hardly constructive, is it? Neither is blanket reverting, losing other material in the process. Irpen seems to me to be acting entirely reasonably, and I note that Irpen's edit history is both broader in scope and apparently contains far fewer edit wars. Perhaps the problem is closer to home? I note that you just reverted again. Stop it. Engage in discussion on the Talk page and stop revert warring. Just zis Guy you know? 16:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insert any disputed copyright images in this article. All the images I inserted there are over 70 years old. I replied to your comment on the discussion page. Deleting referenced material isn't an answer, is it? Yes, I did revert these deletions. I will do this again unless you provide some sort of reason. Please go ahead and ban me for this. Here is my answer:

Ok, let's go sentence by sentence of what was erased. First you erased a commonly known term from the first paragraph. There is a long debate on this page by the people who refuse to accept it. However, the term passes the definition of a "common term" according to Wikipedia standards (please read WP:NC - "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Is this not neutral?). Second, you erased the sentence "The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities." It is referenced and seems neutral. Then you erased a referenced sentence "At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year).[22]" Again, I don't see anything not neutral here, please correct. Then you deleted "The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation"." Is this not neutral? If not, please explain why in detail. Then you erased two paragraphs: "The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[23]. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general." and "Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City. The fourth Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine. Still the Holodomor remains a politically charged topic for many parties, especially in Russia. Some Russian authors continue claiming that the Holodomor was not an act of genocide but a "mere famine".[24]" Both paragraphs are well supported by references. For instance, each country added to the list above was supported by a reference within edit comments. I can't find anything not neutral about this text. Again, my opinion could be subjective, so I need your explanation of why you deleted this material.--Andrew Alexander 02:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal info infringement

Over at my talk page, 70.25.152.39 has tried to guess my name (here). Without either confirming or denying that this is correct, I want to point out that this was an infringement of the 'No Personal Information' rule. I would like for this to be deleted permanently, if possible. Bucketsofg 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant revisions were deleted per your request. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Keystrokes

We the editors at Freemasonry are convinced by this user's actions that he is a sock of User:Lightbringer AKA User:Basil Rathbone. He has gamed 3RR on the article, used misdleading edit summaries, and now that the page has been protected, Keystrokes has taken to vandalizing the RFC page we have, as well as personally attacking both myself and JASpencer on the Talk:Freemasonry page, wherein he also makes his biases clear. The one valid point he makes is pursuant to another related page, and it is like that because of his actions (the article was rewritten, and the summary has yet to be updated due to constant vandalism and edit-warring). Would it be possible to speed up the sockcheck, or get some sort of intervention besides the protect? The problem is not the article, but the user. MSJapan 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keystrokes has been blocked for WP:3RR. If when the block expires he continues disrupting WP, place a message here again and we shall take care of it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colignatus, escalated

I asked earlier for Colignatus (talk · contribs) to be blocked for making personal threats against me, when he was threatening to contact my MIT dean to try to intimidate me into allowing his POV original research on voting system articles. Other admins weren't willing to block him at the time, encouraging an RfC instead.

Joseph Lorenzo Hall, who has come to my defense in the discussion and endorsed the RfC, is now the target of personal threats himself:

"I noticed that you are at SIMS, so now I have to write to Hal Varian, if he's still there. Why don't you behave decently, it would have saved us all a great deal ?" -- Colignatus

Colignatus has been warned several times that he can be blocked for such threats. Since he is not actually being blocked, however, he has the opportunity to extend his threats to more people. Every day that this RfC goes on, as well as the RfAr that would probably have to follow it, is an opportunity for Colignatus to make more threats against diligent Wikipedia contributors. I maintain that he should be blocked now, indefinitely, by an uninvolved admin.

I quote the policy on threats at WP:NPA:

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.

Yes, the situation does fall under both "other" clauses. Editors have been banned for threatening to contact employers in the past, though, and I think contacting academic superiors falls along the same lines. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This behaviour is increasingly distressing. As I cannot find any edits of Colignatus' that are not either self promotion or personal attacks, despite several warnings, I've blocked him indefinitely. If he is able to demonstrate to me or any other admin that he will not engage in this behaviour further, he may be unblocked, but if the behaviour does continue after being unblocked, then I expect that he will be blocked again.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He just send me the following e-mail:

Geachte heer Koot,

Ik zag dat u een block signaal op mijn user page heeft gezet.
Wonderlijk dat zoiets kan.

Maar, u studeert wiskunde aan de univ. van Utrecht. 

Twee punten dan:

(a) Wanneer u Richard Gill kent, moet u maar eens naar mij vragen.

(b) Wellicht wilt u mijn concept brief aan de hoogleraren van MIT en SIMS lezen, die ik
nu in arre moede op mijn talk page heb geplaatst. Wanneer Rspeer en anderen niet zo vol
onbegrip waren en mij wat tijd hadden gegund, dan had dit allemaal niet hoeven gebeuren. 

Met vriendelijke groet,

Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus

Basically asking me if I know Richard Gill (a professor at the math department where I study). —Ruud 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my dealings with this user (over a page deletion) werent the best dealings ive ever had either (i put them down to newcomers in-experince) Benon 17:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned user DW

To my mind, multiple hardbanned User:NightCrawler alias User:JillandJack alias User:DW is certainly identical with Ted Wilkes. For facts supporting this view, see also [50]. Here is a debunking edit by NightCrawler:

PLEASE NOTE: I, NightCrawler, have never attacked anybody at Wikipedia, the record of contributions will show hard work creating quality non-copyright violated articles to the best of abilities and go about fixing numerous links, inserting full birth/death dates when only a year is listed and then posting that info to the “year” page. Nightcrawler never interferes in others work, ever. However, while NightCrawler never has and never will attack anybody, this User most certainly will respond forcefully to an attack on me through lies, innuendo or other conduct unacceptable to Wikipedia policy. Thank you for showing respect to ALL Wikipedia users.

See [51]. This is remarkably near to expressions frequently used by Ted Wilkes in defense of his own misbehavior:

Note that User:Ted Wilkes never inserted statements from less that unimpeachable sources that in fact contradicted these statements by the Crime Magazine personal website etc. Instead, I put them on the Talk page with detailed rebuttal that was ignored by Onefortyone. See [52].
I am the one who requested this page be protected. For the record, I NEVER removed any link to The Guardian, EVER. Before making such a statement, it is best to check the facts. See [53].
NOTE: "to engage in prostitution" is TENTH in Webster's order of definition but again, Guralnick never once used the word in that context – ever. See [54]

Furthermore, both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes contributed to the List of Canadian musicians and to the List of people who died in road accidents. See [55] and [56]. Both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes are interested in the history of motor racing. See [57], [58], [59], [60] and [61], etc.

In the past, DW, NightCrawler and JillandJack also contributed to the Bugatti article. See [62]. In addition, DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack and User:Karl Schalike contributed to the List of Quebecers. See [63]. Finally, both Karl Schalike and JillandJack contributed to the List of racing drivers. See [64].

I think, this is evidence enough that DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack (and probably Karl Schalike) are identical with Ted Wilkes, especially in view of the fact that they are all logging in from Canada.

The case of Karl Schalike is somewhat different and confusing though, as he made edits in support of the view that Adolf Hitler may have been homosexual. Ted Wilkes, on the other hand, is frequently deleting contributions which prove that some celebrity stars may have been gay. However, between 29 March 2005 and 2 February 2006, there were only three Wikipedia contributions by Karl Schalike, two of which were significantly made in defense of Ted Wilkes: [65] and [66]. Furthermore, this edit by Karl Schalike is certainly an allusion to, if not a parody of, my own contribution here. If Karl Schalike is indeed identical with Ted Wilkes, then it is quite obvious that this user endeavours to game the system by poking fun at serious topics.

In my opinion, it is high time to hardban Ted Wilkes alias DW for all of his system-disrupting activities. Onefortyone 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: It is WAY TOO LATE for Checkuser at this point, since DW and many of the original sockpuppets lasted edited YEARS ago. --TML1988 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Karl Schalike and Danny B., two other supposed aliases of Ted Wilkes? It is very interesting that a relatively new user has deleted exactly those passages from the Nick Adams article which support the view that Adams had homosexual leanings and reverted the Elvis and Me article to exactly the version preferred by Ted Wilkes. Could it be that User:Danny B. is related to, or identical with, Ted Wilkes? See [67] and [68]. It is certainly no coincidence that both Danny B. and Ted Wilkes contributed to the following Wikipedia articles: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], etc. Their editing interests are very similar, if not identical. Onefortyone 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser may still be practical. Naturally a checkuser on Ted Wilkes will recover his IP. Angelique, Nightcrawler and the other puppets were all identified by manual checks done by developers (essentially ur-checkuser), and I suspect details of that (the names of the specific ISPs involved) will be in the various talk pages regarding each sock (or perhaps user:Tim Starling and user:Angela, who were involved with said checking will remember). Off the top of my head I seem to remember DW being located in the Great Lakes area of Canada (although I could be entirely wrong on that one). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can also remember that DW is located in the Great Lakes area of Canada. I think this information comes from User:Angela who had much experience with DW in the past. Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See [78], [79], [80], [81] and [82]. It should be noted, too, that administrator Jtdirl also thinks that "there is a widespread rumour that Wilkes is our old pal DW. The edits are the same: find one topic and flog it to death by writing every conceivable article about it. Wilkes's big issue is actors. Like DW sports (horse racing) seems a thing with him. If it is clearly established that he is DW he will be banned permanently instantly like all his other sockpuppets and trolls." See [83]. Onefortyone 21:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been going through the images uploaded by User:JillandJack, and I do notice a number of similarities between them and those uploaded by User:Ted Wilkes. Both have the (bad) habit of not providing sources for images they deem to be in the public domain, e.g. Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:LoisWeber.jpg (Ted Wilkes). Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g. Image:NikideSaintPhalle.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:Noah-beery-jr.jpg. Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source URL: Image:BFbryant.jpg. This was another habit of JillandJack--I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. I find it quite plausible that this is another DW clone. Chick Bowen 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO User:Chick Bowen:

Just for the record. Sometimes even very high-volume, quality contributors forget to post the source for images. Wikipedia:Civility says we politely ask them for it. However, the tone and content of the above remarks by Chick Bowen makes it appear that he is on a mission to denigrate my contributions. I certainly hope not. Some of his comments show a lack of understanding of both the Internet, Wikipedia, and U.S. copyright laws. As an example: Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) – He misled readers on this. The uploader (JillandJack) did not label this image as PD, they labeled it US-PD. A very significant, and I might add, most basic difference. Unless officials pickled the gentleman's body for six years then propped him up for a photo in 1923, then when someone dies prior to 1923, any photo taken of them and published in the U.S. is automatically US-PD. In case Chick Bowen is not aware, the Wiki program automatically links to the article where the image was posted so if one uses their mouse and clicks on it they can see that the 19th century image is of a Canadian/American businessman named MacDonald who departed this earth in 1917. Simply explained, when you are dead prior to 1923, you are dead. Chick Bowen's arbitrary removal of that image demonstrates a lack of knowledge on very basic copyright matters, but worse it shows he takes such action without having studied the issue so as to act based on knowledge, rather than unqualified and unfounded assumptions.

Next, Chick Bowen's stated: "Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g." I'm not the only thoughtful editor who does this type of valid sourcing. Google deliberately creates this format and copying the Google label avoids excessive linking on Wikipedia pages. Excessive linking has been talked about many times, most recently with respect to dates in biographies etc.

Next, Chick Bowen's quote that "Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source". This reality applies to thousands of Wikipedia images as at one time the magic ellipsis was automatically generated in place of all blanks by the Wikipedia upload program.

Finally, Chick Bowen stated: "I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. " - How does an image effectively have No source? I think we need to follow Wikipedia policy, not create it ad hoc.

A brief look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page shows Chick Bowen has had a lot to say on a lot of things. It is certainly commendable that he also has made sixty (60) new articles in the 8½ months he has been here. Nonetheless, I'm going to suggest that Chick Bowen might wish to refrain from impugning a fellow Wikipedia editor and with no certification in copyright law he should refrain from deleting images based on that demonstrated lack of knowledge. I cannot speak for the Wikipedia uploader (JillandJack) that Chick Bowen refers to, but ALL of my image uploads were made in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. However, if out of my 18,888 quality edits at Wikipedia and my 677 new articles made within the past 12½ months, I occasionally forgot to paste the source, as I said at the start, all one has to do is use Wikipedia:Civility and ask for clarification. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of JillandJack's uploads can be speedily deleted under our policy, since JillandJack is a reincarnation of a hard-banned user--I've kept the ones that had clear sources out of courtesy, but I see no reason to keep ones that don't have clear sources, regardless of the content of the image. As for you--I've stated what I observed and you've stated your response. Ultimately, it's not up to me to determine, which is why, as you've noticed, you're not currently blocked. Chick Bowen 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DW was apparently from Elliott Lake in Northern Ontario, if that helps. I think we had an understanding with DW that if he came back, stopped uploading copyrighted images, and stopped being a troll (as he was as Angelique and JillandJack), and generally edited in such a way that it was not obviously him, he would be allowed to stay. Whatever the problem is here, it doesn't seem that Ted Wilkes should be banned simply for being DW (if he is). Adam Bishop 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales has banned user DW and his many sockpuppets indefinitely. See Wikipedia:List of banned users. When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account, according to Wikipedia policy, can likewise be blocked. See [84]. It should also be taken into account that Wilkes already made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling and was blocked for one week. See [85] and [86]. He has again been temporarily blocked for breaches of WP:Point including posting deliberate mispresentation of an arbcom ruling, edit warring, accusations of lying against multiple users (including calling one user a "convicted liar" and other misbehaviours). See [87]. This means that he will continue gaming the system if nobody puts a stop to this. Onefortyone 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Ted Wilkes is indeed uploading copyrighted images with incomplete sources, just as DW and JillandJack did. Chick Bowen 23:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here is an image that was uploaded by JillandJack.

This one and this one were uploaded by Ted Wilkes. Onefortyone 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended Ted Wilkes's block for another 48 hours while we work this out. Chick Bowen 03:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional information. Ted Wilkes repeatedly called me an "Arbcom-convicted liar". See [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], etc., though he was informed by administrator FCYTravis that "Onefortyone has not been convicted of any crime. An ArbCom ruling is not a finding of fact in a court of law. For someone who has such a fetish for libel laws, you, of all people, should know that. I'd suggest you remove the 'convicted' bit." See [93]. He is still showing a lack of insight and will continue his personal attacks, as he did in the past. It should also be noted that Wilkes repeatedly endeavored to swamp the Wikipedia article on Nick Adams with expressions such as "gossip book" or "discredited gossip writer", "not supported by any evidence", "alleged", "all unsubtantiated claims ... possibly repeated one from another" etc. in order to denigrate sources he doesn't like. See [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]. It seems as if he wishes to suppress independent sources which are not in line with his personal view. Therefore, he frequently accuses other users of vandalism, of fabricating texts, etc., if their contributions are not in line with his personal opinion. In fact, he himself is fabricating texts. For example, original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See [101], [102] and [103]. I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See [104], [105], [106], [107]. For direct quotes from the book, see [108]. His kind of misbehavior is very similar to that by DW and his aliases. Significantly, Danny B., who also reverted the Elvis and Me page to the version Ted Wilkes preferred (see [109]), has now accused me of having vandalized his user page (see below). Is it just mere coincidence that Ted Wilkes is frequently accusing his opponents of being vandals? See, for instance, [110]. See also his Block log. Onefortyone 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that User:Onefortyone has vandalized [111] my User page. Danny B. 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by user 87.65.151.70

Vandalism of articles on Ken Livingstone and Brian Cant

Warned. Please report vandalism to WP:VIP (for complex vandalism) or WP:AIV (for simple vandalism like this, assuming the editor has been warned and continues to vandalize) instead of here. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking UAE?

I got this mail:

I tried to edit something today only to find my IP is blocked.

I realise you continually block UAE IP addresses, but previously logged in users were still able to edit.

Please could you sort out this situation as soon as possible. I know our ISP in this country is totally fked up using about two different IP addresses for over a million internet users, but it's kind of annoying that wikipedia members with genuine intent have to suffer for the sake of a few sad trolls and vandals.

How about creating a "safe" list of users in the UAE who can still edit no matter what their IP is?

I don't know which IP he means (I've asked and await a reply) (this is my block log).

Anyone care to review? William M. Connolley 23:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If UAE means United Arab Emirates it might well be the block of User:MB. —Ruud 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

195.229.106.18 was blocked as an open proxy so that might be causing the problem as well. —Ruud 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a bit more on this:

Oddly it now working again, which might mean my IP has changed. It's currently 217.165.6.130. It's even letting me edit logged out, which hasn't been possible for ages.

The problem is that this country runs the entire internet through a proxy, meaning it looks as though we're all on the same computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.42.2.28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.229.242.54

This is from User:Istara. I notice there is a 195.229.X.X but not quite the same as the proxy you mention William M. Connolley 11:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosvillarreal (Sock Puppet?)

Carlosvillarreal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Original research, removing segments of article due to political biases, very selective of adhering to Wikipedia policy, refuses to behave appropriately after admin Will BeBack had to protect the page due to Carlos' constant manipulation of the page, suspected sock puppet due to entirety of user's edits being on one article -- MSTCrow 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I protected National Lawyers Guild due to the activity of several editors who were edit warring without seeking consensus on the talk page. I don't know anything about the sock puppet allegation, there may be socks working on the article. -Will Beback 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sock puppet(?) is now having his edits being reverted by other editors. The consensus is not with this guy, and he's trying to do revert wars or something.

MSTCrow 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:BBIH

This user has been blocked and is constantly creating sockpuppets asking for unblock, which has been repeatedly denied. See User talk:BorgHunter and User talk:ESkog for examples. I'm a bit new to the admin thing - is there anything we can do but keep blocking as they come? (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user in question should be emailing you instead to request unblock. Not his "friends", or/and sockpuppets. Just continue blocking the sockpuppets on sight, I guess. - Mailer Diablo 09:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

User:Garglebutt has a personal attack[112] on me on his UserTalk page. He placed it there after disagreeing with me about the content of a number of articles. It contains a false allegation against me that is itself the subject of legal proceedings. I have asked for action to be taken to remove it and no action has been taken. One administrator even asserts that an allegation of this kind is not a personal attack but fails to explain how. I have read the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and they are very clear. I would like it removed and for Garglebutt to be blocked for doing this. It follows a pattern of his personal attacks calling other editors idiots, criminals and other terms of abuse for which he has already been warned. --2006BC 05:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a personal attack, although I think somebody should have a word with him about civility. It's a link to a newspaper article which mentions you in the context of an article which you are (in my humble opinion) rather unwisely involved in editing. Don't you think it would be best to step back and let impartial outsiders edit such articles? Does Jimbo Wales substantially edit his own biography? I don't think so. The amount of heat generated over this series of articles on Melbourne student politics is quite bewildering, really. --kingboyk 14:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's student politics for you, I'm afraid. Young + bombarded by politics + free library Internet access + lots of free time = recipe for disaster. And being a 21-year old undergraduate with an interest in politics myself, I should know. :-) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

marcyu (talk · contribs)

marcyu (talk · contribs) repeatedly blanking his talk page, making personal attacks, civility breaches. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make personal attacks and civil breaches when the page is blank? 09:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by marcyu (talk • contribs)

{fixed indentation, signature). Firstly, the page is blank because you blanked it. Feel free to check the history. Secondly, thanks for finally deciding to sign your posts on talk pages, however you need to use FOUR tildes, not FIVE. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She has now been banned for three days (1 for making personal attacks, 1 for a 3rr violation and 1 for trying to circumvent the 3rr block) but has returns under a different IP. Hir edits at Madea's Family Reunion look more like vandalism than an editorial dispute to me. Any advice? —Ruud 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, he/she (I assumed "she" with the name "Marcy," though if I erred, I'm sorry) has refused to even consider to work together on compromise text. It appears to be 'their way or the highway.' I've asked about signing his/her/it's posts and to refrain from using the HTML justification code out of common courtesy, but have been rebuffed each time. Finally there has been a stretch of reverts using multiple IP numbers to avoid 3RR, and evidently to provide the impression of multiple individuals posting. Mhking 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move vandal

Zephram_Stark..._Non_Stop_Running_ArbCom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Don't worry, I cleaned up his shit. — Mar. 12, '06 [12:38] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

User:Irate v 2

I just gave this user an indefinite block based on User:Irate. Please review. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just for fun I blocked User:Irate v 3 as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wyatt Ehrenfels"

Okay, now this ninny is starting to annoy me.

Summary (those who know or remember the background can safely skip the next four paragraphs): "Wyatt Ehrenfels" (aka Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Tai Streets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 67.129.121.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) aka 172.150.92.250 (talk · contribs) aka some other sockpuppets whose names I don't recall) is the pseudonym of a self-proclaimed expert on Cyberstalking and his own paranoid variation called "gang-stalking", who some months ago tried to extend his self-promotional campaign to Wikipedia.

(For a taste, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Harassment (anti-personnel sense), and # Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking, plus Talk:Dream/Archive1, where "Wyatt" tried to argue for including his own original research and numerous links to the website promoting his own vanity-press-published book.)

"Wyatt" is also an aggressive SEO self-promoter, as a quick stroll through Google for hits for "Wyatt Ehrenfels" will show -- with countless posts on vast numbers of unrelated mailing lists. But Google is a double-edged sword: given Wikipedia's prominence, User:Wyatt Ehrenfels (with its prominent sockpuppet tag) is now the number 5 hit for "Wyatt Ehrenfels" and Talk:Dream/Archive1 (with its collected evidence of "Wyatt"'s bogosity) number 25. He seems to realize this, as he (or someone from his IP) has been occasionally attempting to scrub his name from user pages and Talk:Dream/Archive1. [113] [114] [115] [116]

So far, so what: myself and other editors have consistently reverted his whitewashing attempts and told him to contact the Wikipedia Foundation if he has a problem with this. Since the name is a pseudonym -- his pseudonym -- I'm failing to see the privacy concern, but that's up to the Wikipedia Foundation poobahs.

And speaking of privacy concerns and real names, we (finally) come to the issue that's the point of this post: "Wyatt" has taken to making edits and edit comments that include what he thinks is my real name and background (along with a couple of others he thinks are me -- apparently I'm a USENET poster calling himself "Imperial Leader", based on the fact that the day "Wyatt" made that post, my user page had a picture of Mao on it, who could be said to be an "Imperial Leader": See his chain of logic for yourself). I'm not threatened, just annoyed on general principle.

So, would some admin mind going through those edits and deleting them from the history? You'll find them at

Talk:Dream/Archive1:

[117], [118], [119], [120], [121].

User:Wyatt Ehrenfels:

[122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127].

Thanks in advance. --Calton | Talk 13:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also vprotected them. —Cryptic (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New admin seeks 2nd opinion, please

I have just closed an AFD but subsequently discovered some irregularities. I've not had any sleep for quite a few hours more than is healthy, and I'm a new admin, so I'd appreciate some advice. A synopsis of the problem and the two alternative solutions I've proposed are at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Thanks in advance. --kingboyk 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm kind of torn as well. I think my suggestion is bring it to AfD, and link the previous afds. The article itself is close enough imo to the deleted versions that it *could* be speedied and protected and have the earth salted. That being said, a casual google search showed a washington post article from 2005 12 10 exists that mentions him. I didn't look up the previous afds, though...so I don't know if stuff like that was already considered and discounted.

...but if someone wanted to salt the earth, I wouldn't be that upset. :) Hope that helps --Syrthiss 15:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:JzG deleted it again (having reviewed my synopsis), but the articles have been recreated yet again over night (rolls eyes). I'll rereredelete as recreated material, but perhaps we need to protect the pages or if an article appears again give it a new AFD run. --kingboyk 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been recreated once again so I have protected Knox (flash artist). --kingboyk 05:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aucaman

hi there my freind asked me to join and i'm new so i am not sure where or how to report abuse by a mod, i was just taking a look at User:Aucaman's activites log and came upon this page and this post on that user's guestbook [128]

i don't know if any of adminstartors here can read or write farsi like mr Aucaman but to roughly translate mr Aucaman is telling that guy in farsi that 'your are a backward illitrate iranian, your father is an illitrate killer just like the king of iran cyrus was a an illitrate killer' this is shocking comment coming from a modrator. does wiki allow the modrators to act this way?!?!/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.111.122 (talk • contribs)

Note: I moved this here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Prodego ^talk 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman is not an administrator. We don't have the title of moderator here. Chick Bowen 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If, however, we can verify this translation, then a block would be in order for violating WP:NPA. Stifle 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:Aytakin to take a look. Chick Bowen 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when I read it my eyes almost popped out!! The following " payande IRAN! hala boro kashketo besab. mordeparast. bisavade aghaboftade. koorosh kabiretam be joz ye bisavade adamkosh bish nabood. hadaghal oon ozresh movajahe. vali to....??? mozdooram babate." translates exactly out to :

Long Live Iran! Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but a illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What about you.....??? Your dad's mercenary.

I must say that this is very offensive to the user whose page this was left on and also Cyrus the Great who happens to be loved by many. I think this is User:Aucaman's way of retaliating against the Iranians who are in an edit war against User:Aucaman on the Persian people page. This particular user has been very offensive to Iranians. Also I will gladly help with any translating in the future. --(Aytakin) | Talk 23:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there's a long history here, some of which is recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman. Clearly the comment above is of a different sort than what is discussed at that RfC. However, this situation seems to be escalating, and I would ask other admins to take a look. Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been poking around here for a while, and I must warn any admins looking into this situation that there's a lot of innapropriate behavior on all sides, reported and not. --InShaneee 16:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman was wrong to lose his temper, but he did so in response to severe provocation -- the anon he was abusing had started the interaction by leaving taunting messages in Farsi on Aucaman's talk page. I can only read bits and pieces of Farsi, just some of the vocabulary annexed into Urdu, but I know that the anon was telling Aucaman, "Shut up, Jew!". Zora 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the other user, 201.252.133.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as well. Chick Bowen 02:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can read a bit of Persian and I hereby verify Aytakin's translation. Both users should be punished in my opinion. But I'd like to point out that it's simply amazing how User_talk:Aucaman manages to get away with so much on this website. There are at least half a dozen incidents concerning his behavior reported on this page alone, yet he always manages to get away. Even when he was blocked, his block was lifted within an hour. Now I do know that User_talk:Aucaman is an active user with a lot of contributions, but that should not give him immunity when he obviously breaks the rules on regular basis. --ManiF 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've given an explanation here. This anon came from nowhere and started attacking me. He's probably one of the users I'm already involved with who decided to come back with an ip and attack me. (How else could he know I was Jewish from my edit here???) Aucaman^Talk 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Julian Thome

Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effection: Hellraiser and Julian_Thome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This kid has been at it for months - reappearing every couple of weeks to post articles about a movie that he fantasizes he's directing and producing, with all his favorite Hollywood actors in it. That seems to be the beginning and end of what he has to contribute, and his repeated creation of deleted material is disruptive. I'm reluctant to just throw a long block at him, because he seems to have stopped for now, but I'm reluctant to do nothing, because Wikipedia isn't a playground, but a short block seems pointless. So, I thought I'd post here and see what others think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for a month, though, honestly, he needs to be blocked indefinitely if he pulls this crap again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. He's been plonked indefinitely. After perusing his talk page, I was reminded of all the emails promising to return and recreate deleted material and vandalise from the last time I blocked him. He broke his last straw ages ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations in u*****xes

Sorry for the bad language. I bring the House's attention to Special:Contributions/Asterion. Being the warm, fuzzy, cuddly admin that I am, I don't want to revert war. I have left a comment on Asterion's talk page: would someone mind sorting this out? Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warm, fuzzy, and cuddly? Please, don't confuse yourself with me!--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am being stalked

After trying to clean up gross POV problems in several articles, I have now begun being wikistalked by Palmiro, Zero000, and Ramallite.

Someone please help. This is horrid behavior by admins. BlatherAndBlatherscite 23:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that all contributions must be verifiable and that editors who are adding material may be asked for a citation to a reliable source when adding information to an article. Your contributions may be removed if you are unable to provide your sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Thanks for understanding, and please consider discussing disputes at the Talk pages instead of the administrator's noticeboard. Jkelly 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also try to be civil in your edit summaries. Prompt accusations just won't do. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, I do not think the three above people are admins. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallite is an admin and so am I. BlatherAndBlatherscite is a troll, please ignore it. --Zero 09:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Church blocked

I blocked Mike Church (talk • contribs) for making some exceedingly rude comments on his user talk page in response to another block notice. This behavior is par for the course for Mike, so I made the block a week long. If you feel that this block is too severe, please feel free to remove it, but do me the courtesy of a message on my talk page. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked and reblocked, since your block and the 24-hour one conflicted. He's now blocked for a week, as was your intent. Chick Bowen 12:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Permaban of User:Robertjkoenig's sockpuppets

User:Robertjkoenig was permabanned for his behavior on the USAA page, turning it into a soapbox for his rantings. Several anonymous and non-anonymous users have continued to revert the page to his heavily POV version of it; just tonight with User:Kwai, User:Outofthenoondaysun, User:Interlocutor 1, not to mention harrasing editors who revert his edits.

He has an amusing (and sad) claim that is a conspiracy theory based on the following convo on my talk page:

File:Conspiracy paragraph.jpg

. Btw, recommend speedily deleting the image but I'm not familiar with the process.

I wonder if permanent protection isn't a better way to stave off his efforts; at least with anon we can block his IP's, but I'm reluctant to block every block of his ISP, as will no doubt happen as he exhausts every avenue available to him. Judging by his claims on my talk page that this is a Civil Rights violation, the man is either trolling or needs help.

I'd requested help on the village pump [[129]].

--Mmx1 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected USAA for the time being. I'll look into the behaviour of the edits. Call back here if the vandalism persists, but I suspect it won't. Stifle 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to happen every 3-4 weeks, judging by the history; going back to December 2005 when the original user account initiated the torrent. Hopefully he'll lose interest. --Mmx1 21:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour of Masonic Editors on Freemasonry Pages

There is a group of approximately a dozen editors who have prominently displayed Masonic membership logos on their user pages who are and have engaged in a pattern of widespread abuse and manipulation of Wikipedia Rules, Guidelines, and Spirit. The group refuses to allow information critical of their fraternity to appear on the Freemasonry page and related side pages. I request that Editors who admit to being members of the Freemasonry Fraternity(by their user pages or otherwise) not be permitted to edit Freemasonry related pages. Previously this same group of Editors have made arguements on Admin pages that various non-mason Editors who admitted on their user pages to being opposed to Freemasonary not be permitted to edit Freemasonry pages by blocking simply because their stated opposition to Freemasonry was a POV agenda. I ask for the same rational be applied to Freemason Editors - they have a POV agenda and they should thus be blocked from editing related pages. Thank-you for your time and consideration.40 Days of Lent 10:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask to sign me up for any community that is going to be censored on the personal grounds. This is dangerous and divisive slippery slope and this logic is aginst the spirit and policies of WP. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before an admin spends time on this (or more comments come up), please do an RFCU on this user, as this once again appears to be a Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AKA Basil Rathbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) clone. If so, ArbCom actually banned this user from editing Freemasonry related pages, and one should perhaps take what he has to say with a grain of salt. I will also post a request in the proper place as well. MSJapan 10:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has already posted it. MSJapan 10:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Humus ... check out LL and LL2. We've already had "communities" "censored on the personal grounds", and quite rightly, too. I don't support what 40 Days of Lent (talk · contribs) has to say, but it's not utterly whacked. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental: MSJapan who I consider to be the one of the principal 'leaders' of the quasi Wiki Lodge of Freemasons who has 'taken control' of all pages on Wikipedia related to Freemasonry and quite ruthlessly deleted material critical of their Fraternity while adding propaganistic material from their fratenrity that is impossible to confirm has once again deleted a series of external links to websites critical of Freemasonry. [here] The 'consensus' he alleges that exists for this is simply half a dozen Masonic Editors supporting their pre-agreed action.40 Days of Lent 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 000 thundering typhoons!

can someone please look at 10 000 thundering typhoons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for gaming 3RR, arbcom ruling violation on Rajput and suspected sockpuppet of Shivraj_Singh (talk · contribs)? Impumozhi got no reaction above. This editor will not change his way, edit warring has been brewing for a year, and we cannot be expected to plod through an RfAr every time he creates a new sock. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a redirect just to prevent moving its target over it

User:Gateman1997 has edited some redirects, including State Route 15 (California), State Route 99 (California) and State Route 130 (California), for the sole purpose of preventing their targets from being moved over them. This strikes me as extremely dickish. Can anything be done about this? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that if someone cares enough to do that, you'll want to WP:RM the move before doing it anyway. The closing admin can move it over the redirect when that's done. --W(t) 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if there's no consensus either way, this will make the difference between one location and the other. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there appears to be a solid consensus to leave them where they are. However if you'd like to attempt to create a new consensus on those 3 articles you're welcome to do a WP:RM and see what comes of it as was suggested above. And for the record I believe it's called being proactive to support the current consensus position against unilateral moves, not being dickish.Gateman1997 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the redirect editing but disagree with the move idea. In Gateman1997's defense, what is one supposed to do when you're not an admin and you can't stop SPUI's moving of like 200 pages? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Bowling by IP 193.63.160.253

This IP has been warned repeatedly against blanking and vandalism, but continues to do so. On Bowling, I and another editor have reverted it 2x already this hour. Please consider action.--CTSWyneken 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be blocked now. Please use WP:AIV in future for such reports. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2

Is User:Tawkerbot2 malfunctioning? Noticing this edit of mine, it called it "vandalism" and proceeded to blank the page Batman and my talk page User talk:Kusma. What's going on? Kusma (討論) 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's been shut down. See WP:AN. Chick Bowen 16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, noone should be using a bot to carry out reverts anyway. It's a human thing, that can be bot-alerted, but not bot-implemented reliably. -Splash^talk 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does a pretty damn good job of it, good enough that Jimbo was convinced to support it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Curps has a pretty good idea of exactly what went wrong today, and what can be done to fix it. - TexasAndroid 16:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's doing a pretty good job, and I'm glad to see something like this finally implemented. — Omegatron 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tawkerbot2_bug_fix for an analysis of the problem with Tawkerbot2... it's actually the Wikimedia software's fault, not Tawkerbot2's. Under some conditions, when the database starts acting wonky, pages display incorrectly (as either non-existent or blank, depending on whether you view them in regular mode or "edit page" mode, respectively).

Tawkerbot2 thought pages were being blanked because that's exactly what Wikipedia was showing. Note that bots usually examine pages in "edit page" mode, because then they can extract Wiki markup directly from the editing textarea instead of dealing with raw HTML source (the latter is harder to parse and subject to change at developers' whim).

There's a workaround that bots have to implement to get around this bug in the Wikimedia software. -- Curps 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Dark Jedi

I'd like to report User:Dark Jedi and request that he be blocked for continuing disruption of conflict resolution at Talk:Bionicle; including personal attacks, falsifying posts with forged signatures (fake posts removed, see History page), and harassment on user talk pages. Drakhan 17:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours for being a general nuisance. Stifle 21:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Master101

I have indefinitely blocked Master101 (talk · contribs) for this death threat. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this: [130] He just erased the block notice I placed on his talk page. Should it be protected? --TML1988 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsertion of copyrighted material

See this history [131] of Southern Pacific 2472. Insomniac186 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) seems to be reinserting (after I left him a message suggesting he not do that) copyrighted material that both User:W.marsh and I have removed. I believe in WP:1RR, and already reverted him today on this article, so I could use a little advice as to what to do next. He has added good content to other articles (or at least it seemed that way to me)... Is reinsertion vandalism, or is this the right place to bring this? Other suggestions? I'll watch here for a while, no need to leave me a message. Thanks and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His latest edit to the article doesn't appear at a quick Google to be copyvio. Is it? If it is, I'd reckon that you can remove it without regard to the 3RR rule, even though it isn't specifically listed as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Ultimately, you'd have to block him, but perhaps he's gotten the message. Yes, I know about RickK, but that's a long time ago and Jimbo has made very clear that he wants us to be pretty merciless at ridding the 'pedia of copyvios. -Splash^talk 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is. It's essentially the same text as he put in before except for maybe a line break or two. It is a lift from this page: [132] per Talk:Southern Pacific 2472... I'll try reverting one more time but maybe a warning from an actual admin might be a good idea (I am not an admin, as you may know) if you guys concur it's copyvio ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the first one [133] was definently a copyvio, it looks like the later version [134] was substantially rewritten, or at least not a copyvio of [135]. So based on this, it would seem that User:Insomniac186 is editting in good faith. --W.marsh 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I was skimming too fast. I've reverted my revert to put it back. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing user's votes (User:SPUI again)

User:SPUI is removing user's votes from WP:TFD that he does not agree with here.JohnnyBGood 00:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was wrong of him and that was wrong of you, too. -Splash^talk 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violator promising to return from another IP

Hey, folks. I blocked a user at 83.221.83.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 3RR at Beastie Boys and Talk:Beastie Boys; he was apparently the same user who had been previously blocked at 83.221.83.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (There's a link that he objects to on the Beastie Boys page.) I tried to explain the pointlessness of edit warring to him, to no avail. He's now threatening to create a script to "parse your site and erase the unwanted link every 10 mins from a different IP", and has already edited again from 80.67.17.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 72.232.81.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). What do we do? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that Tom harrison semiprotected the Beastie Boys page. Why didn't I think of that? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same individual is still edit warring and violating 3RR at Talk:Beastie Boys (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Beastie Boys|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mostly from 72.232.81.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I've blocked that IP, but I fully expect the user to return from another one. The semi-protection policy says that talk pages shouldn't be semiprotected except in extreme cases. Does this qualify? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 69.57.177.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for violating 3RR on the talk page. Review and undo as appropriate. I'm reluctant to s-protect the talk page, but I can if we have to. Could we archive the page and protect the archive? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise I've blocked 83.149.72.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made an archive, which was immediately attacked, so I protected it. I hope this helps, sorry for the inconvenience, review my admin actions, et etcera. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User needing a quick blocking

Since I'm a party in a RfAr against User:Licorne, I'm not going to confuse things by blocking him for WP:NPA at the moment. But here's the latest exchange:

[Comments hidden. User has been rightfully blocked, so there is no need to unintentionally perpetuate such vitriol.]

If someone wants to take care of that, it would be appreciated. This user has had trouble with this before and knows the rules (see his RFA for details), though the blatant anti-Semitism is a new twist. --Fastfission 00:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know -- nevermind. I'll take care of it myself. Nobody is going to object. --Fastfission 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And there I was making a week-long block. -Splash^talk 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Wiki Spam

Hello, I received this message today, asking me to contribute to an off-site wiki-project related to sports. It reminded me of a similar message I'd received previously. I checked into the poster User:Roblefko and I found that every single edit this user has made has been to recruit users to this other wiki project. That's gotta be against the rules. If it isn't it should be. Possibly we can annul this account on the grounds that their user page is not being used to help build an encyclopedia? What does everyone think? Johntex\^talk 02:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have someone from meta add the website to our spam blacklist, too?

I'm blocking his account and removing his linkspam from the pages where he placed it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with the spamming this fellow is doing, I think it's common courtesy to warn someone before you block them. how else are they to know they are doing anything wrong?--Alhutch 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only edits the guy made were linking to his own site; he hasn't made a single contribution to the encyclopedia. In his last run, he spammed fifty talk pages in eighteen minutes. I'll unblock (or anyone else can) if he indicates a desire to contribute to Wikipedia (and not just use our bandwidth for advertising his project)...or maybe if his site is blacklisted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he has not contributed to wikipedia or evinced a desire to do so. However, I think it would be nice to give the guy a little warning before he gets blocked, since he seems to be acting in good faith. I don't entirely disagree with your course of action, though.--Alhutch 03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update—I've blocked his account and rolled back all of the linkspam (about a hundred talk pages total). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further update. He actually has at least one sock. This looks like a deliberate linkspamming operation. Have a look at the contributions of Awrigh01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); it's the same message, to hundreds of pages. I've blocked, and am rolling back. Perhaps a sock check, to find out if there are any others? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a sock, it's a different person. In the interest of full disclosure, I have an account on the website they are spamming for. Those are definitely two different people.--Alhutch 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I could try to contact them on the other website and tell them to cool it with the spam on Wikipedia.--Alhutch 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website added to the Meta Spam list. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the m:Spam blacklist. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and see also Dan121377 (talk · contribs). UninvitedCompany has already blocked and reverted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UninvitedCompany has not responded to my inquiry into having the ban and reversions lifted. Both were inappropriate. My comments to user talk pages did not provide the URL to the outside site unless the user in question requested it, with one minor exception (person provided NPOV edit to page; when reverted, asked where it would be appropriate). Similarly, I have made substantive edits to the wiki. I was banned without warning and, as my user talk notes were not spam, without justification. Now, the power-tripping admin (see his talk page for complaints by others) does not reply to me? Absurd. --DansGhost 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"my user talk notes were not spam" – They most certainly were spam, whether or not they contained an external link. See Wikipedia:Spam. android 79 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I was doing does not fall into the categories on the page you cite to. I checked that page before doing what I did for that specific purpose. Indeed, I'm just doing what is otherwise accepted in regard to Wikicities, save for the fact that my site is not in any way affiliated with Wikipedia's founders. In the very least, I should have been notified before such drastic action was taken. The draconian response is entirely unfounded. --DansGhost 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't read as far as Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. android 79 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem right. Shouldn't the users get some kind of warning before being blocked? It's not like they were vandalising content. Their comments to various talk pages has been going on for days if not weeks. Recommend reverting the blocks and issuing warnings; only carrying out the blocks if the spam continues. Nfitz 05:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: unblock and see what happens. Since it was added to the meta spam list after all blocks were issued, we could see what happens next. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now unblocked Awrigh01, because he's apologized and he seems to 'get it'. I look forward to positive contributions from him. Since the site in question is blacklisted, he can't spam anyway....

I've also lifted the block on Roblefko. Once again, because of the blacklist there isn't a need to keep the block, methinks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Defamation by User:Raphael1

User:Raphael1 stated that I was lying diff when I made this comment stating: Irishpunktom is the one who added the reference to Taliban.

Additionally User:Raphael1 has made bad faith requests for support, "Please help me to remove the anti-muslim propaganda on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. User:Raphael1 " on numerous editor's pages diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, (a total of about 20).

As well he has falsely accused other editors of Wikipedia violations like he did against User:MX44 here (MX44 will surely verify this).

And he has attempted to use a false pretense (claiming WP:NPA) in requesting deletion of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons image. diff

He has vandalized the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy article. diff and been subsequently warned.

All of which has added up to an editor that has been quite disruptive.

What recourse does an editor like myself have against a fellow editor who defames me? Netscott 03:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is disruptive, I myself have been accused of not following consensus by this editor, but as I am (albeit a minimal) part of this dispute will not take action. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:13 UTC (2006-03-14)

I will politely point the user toward Wikipedia is not censored and add a warning. Sasquatch t|c 06:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CyberGhostface

Blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly removing {{nsd}} ("no source" image tag) tag from image (Image:Will.i.am.jpg) without discussion, explanation and after being warned the first time. --Wgfinley 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

202.72.148.102

Could someone please block this user for his constant vandalism, mainly at Christianity. Thanks, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Canada College

I am an administrator who has been trying to mediate a dispute on this article -- see Talk:Upper Canada College. An anonymous editor is not satisfied with my atttempt at mediation. It would be useful to have another administrator take a look at this. If I have overstepped my bounds as an administrator, I would like to know as I am relatively new at this. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That anon is definatly not helping things, and certainly seems to be alone in his POV about the changes to the page. I strongly encourage other admins to take a look at this before it gets (more) out of hand. --InShaneee 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack by Alireza Hashemi

He/she personally attacked me on this page: [136] by calling me a racist vandal. MB 12:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the user against personal attacks. If he/she does it again, they will be temporarily blocked. --InShaneee 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majalo

Can someone keep an eye on User:Majalo. He's vandalizing and uploading useless images, but I don't have time to deal with him right now. Sorry if this isn't a good place to put this. I'm a little confused by the recent restructuring. Thanks. --Tantalum T e lluride 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netoholic

Despite repeated warnings, Netoholic (talk · contribs) continues to insert the harmful "hiddenStructure" CSS hack (explicitly condemned by lead developer Brion Vibber) into templates (and to revert war with other users over its inclusion). This warrants a block, even without considering the fact that Netoholic is banned from the template namespace and limited to one revert per page per day (restrictions that are to be enforced when his edits are disruptive). Due to Netoholic's allegations of misconduct on my part (and pending arbitration against me), I'm listing this here. —David Levy 15:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators have asked that I not be blocked unless being "disruptive". hiddenStructure is being added to many templates by many different editors. It's a very common practice... so how am I special, deserving a block? I think David is complaining about my edits to Template:Infobox Book, where I've described on talk my changes (to remove fields which give details on a specific printed version of a book, rather than the work itself). There is nothing disruptive about that proposed change, except the people who can't bother posting on talk. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The template cited above is only the most recent example. 2. You're well aware of the fact that the "hiddenStructure" hack is harmful (because it breaks pages for some users), so repeatedly adding it to templates is quite disruptive. So is revert warring. Several users oppose your changes (and a couple have even requested on your talk page that you stop), but you insist upon violating your ArbCom ruling by forcing them through. Posting explanations of why you're right and they're wrong doesn't magically justify your stance. —David Levy 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "well aware" that hiddenStructure is harmful. In fact, we did have one blind Wikipedian comment on it and said it wasn't bad if user properly, which is why there are guidelines on Wikipedia:hiddenStructure. Charging me with revert warring, when it is rarely anyone except you and Locke Cole reverting me, is disingenuous. On Template:Infobox Book, you did not explain why you reverted. I explained whyI made the changes, so why is there a double-standard? It seems to me the only harmful revert warring is when the reasons for the reverts have gone unexplained. You're not allowed to stalk me to a template, revert me with no reason given, and then claim I am the revert warrior. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Brion Vibber clearly and unambiguously explained why the "hiddenStructure" hack is harmful, and you've been directed to his comments on several occasions. 2. Even if your premise that the opposition to your edits is confined almost exclusively to Locke Cole and me were true (which it isn't), so what? Do you deny the fact that you're revert warring? 3. I've repeatedly explained to you that your insertion of "hiddenStructure" code (in flagrant defiance of Brion Vibber's stance) will not be tolerated, so you knew perfectly well why I rolled back your edits (which were tantamount to vandalism). —David Levy 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that statement by Brion, he advocated built-in conditionals to hiddenStructure. So far, we still have no built-ins. Brion also never advocated Template:Qif - neither as an alternative to hiddenStructure nor on it's own. He's shattered WP:AUM without providing alternatives. Without alternatives, there is no single solution. As such, removing optional fields from a template is a totally legitimate alternative, depending on the circumstances. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{qif}} template doesn't break pages. The "hiddenStructure" hack does. Therefore, while {{qif}} is not an ideal solution, it certainly is a much better solution than "hiddenStructure" is. Feel free to discuss (but not edit war over) the removal of optional fields.

And incidentally, Brion didn't "shatter" WP:AUM, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the community. He shattered the myth that the developers had promoted it to policy status. —David Levy 18:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you justify continuing to accuse me of edit warring without discussing? Look at yourself, you've reverted me twice on that template without dicussion. I posted on talk when people raised a concern. Where are you? Do you even care about the particulars?

I didn't accuse you of "edit warring without discussing." Your comments in question pertain to an unrelated debate. I only reverted the edits in which you inserted the "hiddenStructure" hack (which I have discussed a great deal). It's absolutely unacceptable to deliberately break pages for some users, and no amount of discussion is going to change that. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David and Locke on this and would like to thank them for their energy to tackle Netoholic. Most people have given up on this. Netoholic will never stop. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Adrian. Netoholic continues to advocate positions that other members have repeatedly and soundly rejected. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here we have it... I am being attacked just for advocating a position. I'll never stop advocating a position I feel is correct. I've greatly tempered my actions in recent months; whereas I'm now subjected to people reverting me on-sight without explanation. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you only would advocate, that wouldn't be so harmful. But you revert war on templates like a dick. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, I see David Levy's link to comments by Brion why he doesn't like hiddenStructure. I've also noticed comments on Brion's talk page that suggest he has as much disdain for QIF. I haven't seen anything here suggesting that either one has been "explicitly condemned" per se. Mind you, I'm rather looking for something from Brion saying "Never use this!" since the obvious conclusion here is that both sides are reading different subtleties into his statements so far.

InkSplotch^(talk) 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brion has indicated that both methods are "ugly," and that native support for conditionals would be preferable. He has not indicated that {{qif}} is inherently harmful. In fact, he shot down the primary reason for avoiding its use (a belief that it adversely affected server performance). He has, however, cited several ways that the "hiddenStructure" CSS hack causes harm. It's been clearly demonstrated that it breaks pages for some users by generating nonstandard HTML code—something that {{qif}} absolutely does not do. Netoholic believes that this is "OK" and "no big deal," and he claims that {{qif}} has the potential to break things (despite a lack of evidence to support this contention).

Brion also stated that while {{qif}} is "ugly," he doesn't care if it's used as a temporary stopgap (until native support for conditionals is added, at which point it probably will break). Compare this to the aforementioned statement regarding "hiddenStructure," in which he cited three ways that it "harms both the primary site's accessibility and offsite reuse of material" (in addition to being "very ugly"). In other words, it's broken now.

To be clear, I'm not here to advocate the use of {{qif}}. It just happens to be preferable to something that breaks pages. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, considering an RFAr is already forming, is there anything here critical, or would this work better as a requested Temporary Injunction? OK, a question and a thought, then. :)

InkSplotch^(talk) 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply enforcing the terms of Netoholic's existing ArbCom decision? —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said... Brion has not said one is preferable to the other. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His stance (that {{qif}} is the far lesser of two evils) is abundantly clear. It's hilarious that you were willing to twist Jamesday's vague statements on meta-templates into a "policy," but you choose to ignore entirely unambiguous statements on the part of Brion. —David Levy 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So from that you imply that hiddenStructure is better than qif because it looks horrible in non-CSS browsers. I do not believe you defend a noble thought here. You only defend your outdated old stance, because you are unable to admit that qif is the better solution for now, because you have always said that metatemplates are bad. But you failed to prove that and nobody believes you, even Brion said the server load issue is a non-issue because there is no evidence. You are using this debate to hinder a viable solution because you are against templates anyway and you are opposing a Media-wiki built in conditional function. What the hell. When have you last time done something useful for this Encyclopedia? I can't remember. Your only goal seems to be to bind resources. Well then. Go for it. This is ridiculous. Let Neto have his hiddenStrucure on the templates or see what people say when he removes conditional things from the templates. We do not need to defend Wikipedia from him. The damage is obviously too little to be noticeable. We are just wasting our time here. That bladder needs to get bigger to burst. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I've never understand why this debate generates so much heat. I use Lynx quite often and it negotiates hiddenStructure just fine. Sure, there's some excess data, but no worse than a normal template with missing parameters (a common occurence in the less heavily-traveled articles). I also confess that I've missed the statistics which demonstrated that Wikipedia was broken for a sizable fraction of the browsing public. This issue is surely not worth descent into a frothing rage. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few blocks handed out related to Ian Lee and Clive Bull

I just blocked User:. Westminsterboy as a possible imposter account of User:Westminsterboy. Related to this, I indefblocked ._JamieHughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) primarily because he was moving around User:Arniep's accusations that . Westminsterboy was an imposter on Talk:Ian Lee and because his username was similar to User:JamieHughes...whose talkpage has a warning about vandalism to Margaret Thatcher from me and who was also contributing to the Ian Lee discussions.

If another admin could review some of the contributions of ._JamieHughes and see if my block is reasonable I'd appreciate it. I don't mind any shortening of the block if you feel it is justified. Thanks! --Syrthiss 15:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These impersonators should be indef-blocked, without question. I just got back from removing the 'actually I think Iain Lee really is gay' comments entirely (which is what the accounts were set up to do), replacing them with '(impersonator comment removed)'. The rest of the impersonators' comments I left up, but annotated with notices to the effect they were impersonators. Further oversight of Talk:Iain Lee and any other LBC-related articles would be appreciated. LBC seems to be a magnet for Wikipedia vandalism, not least because at least one DJ has encouraged listeners to vandalise Wikipedia - a spree of vandalism at Weetabix Minis, which at the time was a stub and not a redirect, was apparently at the behest of DJ James O'Brien. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it an odd coincidence that the Zoewhatever user disappeared right after I blocked . Westminsterboy and . JamieHughes. --Syrthiss 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel confident enough to say without reservation that the 'Iain Lee is gay' claim is complete bollocks, and the various IPs and accounts claiming that he is are, if not sockpuppets (or whatever the equivalent of a sockpuppet for an IP is - shadowpuppets?), at the very least meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, imo some kind of puppetry... Lack of understanding of how wikipedia works ("10 users say its so! PUT IT BACK IN YOU HOMOPHOBES!1!!!"), and lack of reliable sources. :) --Syrthiss 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if y'all want to lift the protect and/or make it into an sprotect, I won't object. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since its in full protection already per you, lets leave it for a couple days and see if the socks have gone home. --Syrthiss 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck {{indefblockeduser}} on User:. JamieHughes and User:. Westminsterboy. Just checking that this was the right thing to do? Syrthiss' block summary of the JamieHughes impersonator said "indef block pending investigation of sockpuppetry and hoaxing", but despite the word 'pending' I can't possibly see how we'd allow this blatant impersonator account to edit Wikipedia again. If any admins are in doubt, here are the diffs: JamieHughes Westminsterboy--Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pending was in case someone here said "OMGWTFBBQ", but nobody has. I was trying to keep a small amount of good faith that . JamieHughes was just JamieHughes who forgot his login information when I made the block. Since nobody objected, they'll remain indefblocked...tho I thought I had dumped at least a username block template on . Westminsterboy. --Syrthiss 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leyasu violating revert parole

Hi, we're having a bit of trouble over on the article Moi dix Mois. User:Leyasu is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see [137]). However: [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]

are all reverts done by Leyasu on March 14, 2006. While Leyasu's edit summaries call the reverts "reverting vandalism", what we have here is a plain old content dispute. I wasn't sure whether to place this here or on WP:AN/3RR; please bear with me if I've made a mistake. Could an administrator please have a look? flowersofnight (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the user Deathrocker added an infobox to the article for the band Moi dix mois, [149].

I corrected some gramma and restored the genres to what they previously where, before Deathrocker changed them [150].

Deathrocker reverted this, marking the revert as minor [151].

After reverting their edit [152], i posted to Deathrocker on their talk page, making a polite request concering the article, aksing them not to start a revert war and to post to my talk page if they have a problem with my edits [153].

Deathrocker deleted this [154], and then went on to revert me, inciting a revert war and making personal attacks using the edit summary [155].

I reverted this, noting that i had asked him not to revert war, and noted id be informaing an admin [156].

He reverted me again, making yet more personal attacks in the edit summary [157].

I reverted this again with some neutral wording [158], which then a user seemingly in the intrest of ending the edit war changed it [159].

Deathrocker however immediatly went on to revert back to his copy, violating 3RR [160].

At this point, i reverted his version again, leaving the note that the neutral attempt was good, but wasnt in Wikipedia prose [161].

Deathrocker then went on to attack me on the Moi Dis Mois talk page calling me an idiot, [162], to which i responded [163], which he then went on to revert the Moi Dix Mois article calling me a troll 'unwilling to partake in discussion on the talk page' [164].

He has also attempted to edit what i have written to you, changing what i have written to insult me [165], which i reverted, noting the vandalism [166].

Its ironic how Deathrocker is in violation of 3RR and WP:NPOV, and that bears no mention. I also find it ironic how that, when the users couldnt bully me into agreeing with them, they chose to hide behind my arbcom ruling, even though Deathrocker is in violation of WP:3RR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, and Flowers is defending the user.

I also added a source for information, which is in compliance with WP:CITE, [167].

Deathrocker replied by reverthing it back to his version, claiming that the source wasnt allowed without his permission [168], again violating WP:CITE and WP:NPOV.

I also notifed admin Sceptre, who has had to deal with Deathrocker deliberatly vandalising articles and inciting revert wars before. Its also ironic how this notice was posted in an attempt of Wikilawyering in the hopes of making sure im scolded before admin Sceptre can intervene. Ley Shade 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source was in violation of WP:CITE; Altervista pages are free personal blogs, not prominent music media or reliable for factual information, and it says "visual gothic metal" there isn't such a genre. Defemation of character by User:Leyasu, NOWHERE did I claim "the source wasnt allowed without his permission" - Deathrocker 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE says nothing about pages not being allowed. If it does, i ask the user Deathrocker to quote here the part that says that Altavista pages are not allowed, considering he has provided no sources of his own. Ley Shade 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will block Leyasu for 48 hours. Leyasu, labeling another user's edits as "vandalism" doesn't exempt you from your parole when it's actually just a content dispute. What you did is *exactly* what the arbcom was trying to stop. I'm also going to block deathrocker for 24 hours for violating 3RR because he's a repeat offender. And as all will note, I am completely uninvolved. Honestly, until I saw this notice, I wasn't even aware of the arbcom case. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leyasu violating revert parole for the second time

Hi, I'm afraid this isn't the only time Leyasu had violated revert parole today, sorry to report this but I feel its my duty as a good Wikipedian. On the Gothic Metal article, that editor seems to be doing the same as above. As stated, User:Leyasu is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see [169]).

Evidence however shows: [170] [171] [172] [173] - Deathrocker 19:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its also ironic how the above statement was made by no other than Deathrocker, [174] , who started the revert wat on the Moi Dix Mois article. Its also ironic how it was Deathrocker i was reverting on the Gothic Metal article, for removing cited information, [175], [176], [177], [178], [179]. The user also is refusing to acknowledge the sources on the talk page that are in abundance. Ley Shade 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Duffer1 impersonator

DufferI (talk · contribs) just blocked. Watch closely for further impersonators of Duffer1 (talk · contribs). I will err on the side of not saying what the IP or range is, but I've made a note of it and will keep an eye out for future examples. See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Sockpuppet - David Gerard 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godmode lite

Why does my GML rollback say:

Please wait, reverting edits by 207.31.166.130... Bad authentication token!

It just stopped working...even older versions don't work.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of usepage

I've informed DickClarkMises that he may be in violation of WP:NOT by his mention on his userpage that he is currently running for political office, with the wording: "I am presently campaigning for the Alabama House of Representatives, District 79 seat, against Mike Hubbard (R; incumbent) and Carolyn Ellis (D)." A brief scan of the comment and the word "campaigning" links all readers to his campaign website. When I asked him to remove it, he stated that "I do not depend on Wikipedia for promotion, and I am not attempting to self-promote via Wikipedia." I would find this to be an incorrect statement and refer to WP:NOT, especially sections: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the fact that this also pertains to userpages.--MONGO 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree here. I just finished a successful political campaign for public office myself and could have easily used my user apge to promote it but did not because I knew that it would have been wrong here. Please deal with this as you will MONGO.Gator (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with it. He makes edits, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that he's running for office. Will we now prevent people from including links on their user page to companies they work for? WP:NOT, sure, but I thought we were allowed to have a post about ourselves on our USER PAGE. He has over a thousand of edits, so it's clear that's not the only reason he made an account.--Golbez 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seems like he's acting in good faith, and a contributor to the enyclopedia otherwise. I don't have a huge problem with it.--Alhutch 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget the fact wikipedia is not the site to promote seflish gain. The userpage is an asset to the site's resources as long as it productively contributes to the main goal. -Zero^Talk 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the attractiveness of Wikipedia is the community. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not Myspace etc. etc, but fact is, a feeling of belonging to a community makes people feel more welcome to stay and write that encyclopaedia. Some of the things which help generate that feeling are policies and guidelines on how editors treat each other, projects like Esperanza, and the ability to have a userpage to identify oneself to everyone else. What would distract us from writing an encyclopaedia more - the odd notice on someone's user page about what they're up to in real life, or policing other people's userpages for anything that looked unconstructive?

I don't believe Dick mentioned his campaign on his userspace to attract votes (what are the chances that someone would find it and live in his district anyway?), I think he listed it because part of the function of a user page is to tell people who you are, and he wanted to say 'I am a politician who runs in significant elections'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have completely missed the point. This isn't about anything other than this editor posting links on his userpage to a current political campaign in which he is running for political office. This is a violation of WP:NOT and not to mention WP:SPAM. None of the information he has about his current political campaign has one thing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think I've missed the point, but I think you've missed the wood in favour of a single tree. It's just one sentence in a single paragraph about what he does in real life. Many people post stuff about their personal life on their userpage, myself included (not so much as Dick, but then I haven't done as much interesting stuff as him). If you want people's userpages to contain nothing about their personal life, or even to have a limited amount on their personal life (perhaps a ratio of content about Wikipedia to other content?) then I have to say you're going to have to propose an actual policy. Singling out a single sentence on a single userpage won't do any good. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating anything other than he remove the spamlink to his own personal political campaign. The rest of the page is fine. If the hand has a splinter, we pull it out, no. The policy already exists...did you not bother to examine WP:NOT and the sublinks? Or does the policy only apply when you think it should.--MONGO 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very different to link to one's place of employment and altogether a whole different thing to post links and information about the fact that they are running for political office. I doubt that he created the userpage just to use it as a political pulpit, but using it in this manner is completely different than and is in conflict with the areas I mentioned above.--MONGO 20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not using his user page to promote his campaign, then he should have no problem removing the external link (which is the only part I think can be justifiably requested be removed). Interested parties can easily use Google to find out more about his campaign. I don't think this is a serious issue, however. android 79 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the link to the political campaign. We allow people to link to campaigns for and against George Bush, for and against gay marriage, etc. It should be no different when the cause in question happens to be the campaign of the user. As long as the user page is being used primarily to help edit Wikipedia, then there is no problem. Johntex\^talk 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's his own personal political campaign. Guess I'll email Jimbo on this one cause this will go to a higher authority. We already know where he stands on userpages. You look at my userpage...there is nothing there that identifies anything other than the articles I have written, some images granted to me and some of my open tasks. Userpages are "on loan"...they belong to Wikipedia, and as such, they are not to be used for personal gain...this is no different than if he was soliciting money for himself.--MONGO 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, why do we need to contact Jimbo? Do we have no more dispute resolution process that we have to run to daddy any time admins disagree? --Golbez 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I think that this is a serious enough issue to possible warrant the website owner opinion on the matter. I don't run to daddy, Golbez...I resent this statement and find that anyone that feels that is is okay to use our userpages for spaming for their political campaigns really needs to reevaluate what the purpose of this project is.--MONGO 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think it's serious at all, and I'm wondering why you feel such urgency over it. He's not spamming at all - has he posted it on any other page? The purpose of this project is to make an encyclopedia, which he has been doing. --Golbez 22:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this whole thing has caused more people to see his "campaign" than if it had been left alone. By drawing this large-scale attention to his user page and campaign website, it has done more for the visibility of his campaign than the original link ever would. Maybe DickClarkMises and MONGO are in political cahoots... ;-) But seriously, Johntex makes a good point above. There is a larger question at hand, Should we continue to allow users to add a link to their personal website on their user page? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree that this is much ado about nothing. As for linking to one's personal website, this guy does it. -- SCZenz 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context, I don't see DCM's userpage as a problem. It looks more like he threw it in as verification of the claim in his bio than as a promotional piece. Spam is usually more garish, y'know? -Colin Kimbrell 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Islands

There has been a lot of editing back and forth going in at the Falkland Islands. The discussion is to lame for words, but it evolves around whether the commonly used spanish name "Spanish:Islas Malvinas" should be mentioned behind the name Falkland Islands. The main motivation not just to follow the proposed guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) is political (giving the name would be an endorsement of the Argentinian claims, the islanders are offended by it etc). A staw poll clearly showed support for the names in the first line, now the editing is to minimise things, by adding lines like (sometimes referred to as the Islas Malvinas) while sometimes means many milion hits at google. --KimvdLinde 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SweHomer

This is regarding the abuses and violations of SweHomer (talk · contribs) on Sweden Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Mind you, he is a member of the politcal party being discussed in the article.) He wrote a section in the article in which he presents his personal opinions and conspiracies as facts and tries to argue their truthfulness with unverified/unsourced claims, which is a violation of WP:POINT policy.

Another user and I tried to delete the section but he keeps reverting, breaking the three-revert rule. I think my version stands now, but I'm not sure. This user is hell-bent on advertising his conspiracies and personal views on Wikipedia articles. He threatens the integrity, truthfulness, and reliability of Wikipedia. I ask that he have his editing privelages revoked. WGee 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on WGee talk reminding about WP:BITE. I think WGee is a relatively new user. --FloNight ^talk

22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jackjohnson33

If you get a chance, could one of the admins reading this please confirm to the above user that people aren't allowed to remove warning notices from their talk page? He isn't inclined to take my word for it, at present. -Colin Kimbrell 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what have you got against him removing the notice? It's in the history after all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that User:Jackjohnson33's only contributions so far have been to harass User:Colin Kimbrell, but I agree with Theresa that there's no point getting upset over someone removing warnings from their talk page. I'm sure a good handful of admins will be keeping their eyes on this user now, and if he continues to engage in personal attacks, he'll be blocked soon enough, visible warnings or no visible warnings. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told him not to do it because it's against policy to remove warning notices,[180] and while I don't really care about him insulting me, an investigating admin might accidentally miss that he was warned if he decides to start posting personal attacks toward someone else. If he just spends the rest of his time here trolling on my talk page, then you're right, it's no big deal. -Colin Kimbrell 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(teleposted by Colin) I strongly disagree with Theresa and GT. When I, and surely others, issue vandalism warnings on people, the major factor on which I base which testx (or NPA or whichever) to use is which ones they've had before, and how recently. I don't want to have to check their history to check that they haven't deleted any {{test3}}s in the past 24 hours before I post a {{test1}}. The 'Removing warnings' and 'Talk page vandalism' parts of 'Types of vandalism should, in my opinion, be followed, at least for recent warnings. The answer to "why not check the history?" is "why should I waste my time for a vandal when policy dictates that I shouldn't have to?" --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that line of thought is that vandals, by definition, don't follow policy. Policy says you shouldn't have to check their history, but it also says they shouldn't vandalize. I always look at their contributions page, and if I see that they've edited their talk page, I check the diffs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are vandals and vandals. Vandals who care enough to remove warnings are relatively rare compared to the usual sort. I operate on the assumption that if an IP deletes warnings from his talk page, people do what I do - see it on their watchlist, roll them back and possibly send them {{wr}}. It would save a lot of time if everyone was able to count on recent warnings staying up there. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Though no-one can be forced to revert warning vandalism, so I guess this is just going to be a case of different strokes. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a stupid question, but what does "teleposted" mean? -Colin Kimbrell 23:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got an edit conflict (hence the slight duplication of your post). Reference to being telefragged. Normally I would say "edit conflict" like everyone else, but the word came into my head (it was the subject of the first article I created, now deleted). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, got it, thanks. -Colin Kimbrell 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,591: / Line 1,591: @@
 :::So from that you imply that hiddenStructure is better than qif because it looks horrible in non-CSS browsers. I do not believe you defend a noble thought here. You only defend your outdated old stance, because you are unable to admit that qif is the better solution for now, because you have always said that metatemplates are bad. But you failed to prove that and nobody believes you, even Brion said the server load issue is a non-issue because there is no evidence. You are using this debate to hinder a viable solution because you are against templates anyway and you are opposing a Media-wiki built in conditional function. What the hell. When have you last time done something useful for this Encyclopedia? I can't remember. Your only goal seems to be to bind resources. Well then. Go for it. This is ridiculous. Let Neto have his hiddenStrucure on the templates or see what people say when he removes conditional things from the templates. We do not need to defend Wikipedia from him. The damage is obviously too little to be noticeable. We are just wasting our time here. That bladder needs to get bigger to burst. --[[User:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
+I confess I've never understand why this debate generates so much heat. I use Lynx quite often and it negotiates hiddenStructure just fine. Sure, there's some excess data, but no worse than a normal template with missing parameters (a common occurence in the less heavily-traveled articles). I also confess that I've missed the statistics which demonstrated that Wikipedia was broken for a sizable fraction of the browsing public. This issue is surely not worth descent into a frothing rage. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 ==A few blocks handed out related to [[Ian Lee]] and [[Clive Bull]]==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards