Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Visual archive cue: 121

Community ban on User:Hogeye

User:Hogeye was blocked for a month for disruption on anarchism related articles. Since then he has been consistently and almost on a daily basis (although with notable and lengthy lulls) been using open proxies to evade his block. Ideally I'd like to see a ban and indefinite block put in place, but I'd settle for something that we don't have to reset the block every couple of days :)

20:15, 7 July 2006, Sarge Baldy (Talk) blocked Hogeye (contribs) (expires 20:15, 7 August 2006) (Unblock) (resetting due to ban evasion)

See the category here. Note that most of these are not sockpuppets in the conventional sense, but just open proxies that are being used to circumvent his block. - FrancisTyers · 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent most of my time on wikipedia yesterday reverting Hogeye's sock edits at Anarchism, so I am fully supportive of this proposal. Their socks also reverted changes I made to other articles recently, including this page, making three personal attacks in the process: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. This user constantly evades blocks and edits disruptively, and it's about time they get banned permanently. The Ungovernable Force 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As the one who protected the Anarchism article for a month while trying to make Hogeye discuss his changes (before the first month-long block), I would not oppose it. --cesarb 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They have a new sock: User:Drowner.--The Ungovernable Force 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• <sarcasm>Oppose; useful method for finding more open proxies to block.</sarcasm> Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: They will still use open proxies even after they are banned permanently, so it won't keep you from finding more. The Ungovernable Force 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell sarcasm in type. It was funny though. The Ungovernable Force 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning User:haham hanuka

I removed part of this users userpage becuase,imho, it violated the guideline at Wikipedia:User page (Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia) ; please also have a look here. I consider a block. Any comments? Lectonar 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the translation (which I had been waiting for before taking further action on this), I strongly support the removal of the material. There's no need for a block at this time, but the user should definitely not re-add the material. -- SCZenz 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The content has just been deleted through a formal procedure and he readds as if the community wasn't here. He should be blocked, as he has done this many times before and he was warned about his disrespect for our community decisions many times before. gidonb 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the was deleted at his request, not because of the MfD—and he hoped that adding it to his user page instead would be a compromise. It's clear the community wants it gone, even from his user page, so that isn't acceptable. But at this time, it has been removed from his userpage by Lectonar and not-readded; as long as he doesn't restore the material anywhere, no further action is necessary. -- SCZenz 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SCZenz: a block isn't appropriate at this time. There is a difference between re-adding because he's in a fight and re-adding after he's gotten multiple sets of administrative eyes. In the former case, the slow-ish dispute resolution process would need to take place. In the latter case, it's sort of a different set of offenses that can justify a block more quickly. (No, I'm not lawyering. I'm suggesting that the user can misunderstand some things, but not others.) Geogre 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Socafan

A bit of an issue with Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have a lid on it at the moment, I think, but the usual "OMG! CENSORSHIP!" reaction to removal of POV statement of allegations against a living individual is in evidence. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• User reported my removal of this content at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:JzG_reported_by_User:Socafan. Just zis Guy you know? 11:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin threatened to block me for providing factual information to an article, refused to use talk, and now added racism to this. Socafan 11:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everybody here will understand the precise form that "factual information" usually takes in edit wars on biographies of living people. And this is no exception. Refused to talk? complete bollocks. Actually the very opposite is true: I toled you to take it to Talk, and there is ongoing discussion on your Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked 15 minutes for continued addition of factual content to an already overloaded and POV tagged Criticism section. Messages left on Talk and User talk indicating how this should proceed. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons appears very applicable in this case. (→Netscott) 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG blocked me while in a conflict of interest, after 5 reverts deleting factual information we even have in our own articles with many sources. Did not apologize for racist comment. Socafan 12:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone is demonstrating "racism" is a very serious charge. JzG's language was entirely and quite clearly (imho) satirical and in jest. (→Netscott) 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

He claimed the French would treat Armstrong differently because he is American and then called them "cheese eating surrender monkeys". Socafan 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not from the U.S. or England... but that is a well known comedic and satirical phrase in these countries. Besides look at this section of "French people". There is hardly an ethnicity (nevermind race) that is truly "French" these days. (→Netscott) 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism allegations cannot be countered by "there are no races". There never were. But there is racism. The comment clearly was derogatory towards the French, and the user repeatedly uses condescending language. Socafan 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What I pointed out was the absurdity of suggesting that the French-dominated Union Cycliste Internationale would allow the conservative American Lance Armstrong, a friend of Shrub, to evade a drugs ban. At the time there was much bad blood between the USA and France; the term cheese eating surrender monkeys is associated with this bad blood in the public mind.

What we have here is a simple case of Wikilawyering. Rather than coming up with the usual tripe about "suppressing information" (and believe me, we all groan out loud when we hear those words) you could instead have accepted my suggestion that you explore, on the article's Talk page, a properly neutral way of covering the issue - and indeed a way of fixing the rest of the section, which is POV tagged for reasons which are bliningly obvious. You might not care if the Foundation gets a call from Armstrong's lawyers, we do. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy does come to mind at this point. ;-) (→Netscott) 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin ignored wikipedia rules by posting at third opinion again with derogatory language, discussed and signed although this is expressly forbidden at the page: [5]. The information I provided is well sourced, and removing it is POV. Socafan 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative interpretation: user ignored Wikipedia rules by posting excessively biased and factually inaccurate request for third opinion and then edit-warred over attemps to contextualise it. The information you provided was stated in biased terms, and gave undue weight to an opinion which does not reflect the current legal status of Armstrong, rto wit: legally not a doper, whatever his detractors say. Until the courts say otherwise, neither can we. A case closed only this month where the implication he was a doper was found to be wrong. Will you foot the Foundation's legal bill? Just zis Guy you know? 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, might I suggest taking a bit of time out... Get away from the computer for a spell and come back with a fresh head. You seem to be in quite a tizz about nothing much, and if you think that's racism then you've had a sheltered life. /wangi 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well said. This person has now posted a heavily editorialised version of events at WP:3O, and is edit warring (who could have predicted that?) over any comment made to offset his editorialising. At the begining I thought this was just someone carrid away by zeal to include some fact they'd newly discovered. By now I am convinced this is a simple POV push. I think I will go over and rewrite the POV section myself. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Making condescending remarks about nationals of other countries is unacceptable. And the main point is that this user removes factual information, violating several wikipedia policies (3RR, do not block when in a conflict of interest, NPOV, assume good faith, do not discuss or sign at Third Opinion). Socafan 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, instead of arm-waving and Wikilawyering, I went and fixed the article. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

---

OK, chaps. Socafan is now removing comments from his Talk page with an edit summary of "trolling". This includes replies, comments re editing of articles, warnigs etc. [6]. I think it might be time for someone to wield a clue-by-four. Just zis Guy you know? 14:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly thinking that this person needs to "cool off" a bit, say for like 24 hours. (→Netscott) 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

His edit war with you at Lance Armstrong makes that a no-brainer. Just zis Guy you know? 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of blocking while in a conflict of interest, breaking the three revert rule and boycotting dispute resolution I filed an arbitration case. Crony Netscott is already informed. Socafan 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling a fellow editor a "crony" is a double personal attack. In that statement the first party is a "thug" and the "crony" is his accomplice. I suspect that User:Socafan will be blocked again before too long. (→Netscott) 00:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Of note: From my understanding of these events, User:Theresa knott, User:Tom harrison, User:JesseW and myself were in general agreement surrounding User:JzG actions relative to User:Socafan and the Lance Armstrong article. (→Netscott) 01:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott and JzG exchange derogatory comments about the French and me, [7] [8] [9] JzG uses Netscott's revert war on my talk page [10] to block me as suggested here by Netscott, and then Netscott complains if I call him JzG's crony? Socafan 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all a conspiracy and you are entirely blameless. Or not. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making derogatory comments and stop to boycott the conflict resolution. Socafan 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Boycotting it? Where? Last I saw I was actively participating in attempts to resolve the conflict in at least five separate places. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Socafan's edits

Would someone who hasn't already been involved with User:Socafan kindly take a look at Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This user has replaced all of the information that User:JzG was insisting be discussed prior to its inclusion in the article. In particular he's been adding information that amounts to "guilt by association" to the article and I have made efforts to remove such information in accord with WP:BLP but I have been repeatedly reverted. This version of the article is the pre-attempts at discussion version. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also please note Socafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s double personal attack here wherein he's referred to me as User:JzG's "crony". Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The alleged attack has already been discussed above. [11] [12] There is an article talk page to discuss article content disputes. Refusal to do so shows there is no intention to find a consensus. Instead there seems to be a desire to silence another user. Socafan 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From looking at this editor's contributions one get's the impression that he's on a bit of a "doping" smear campaign when he makes uncited and unsourced edits like this one on Santiago Botero and this one on Floyd Landis. (→Netscott) 03:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing without sources, the allegations are well known, suppressing them here is POV, and claiming others do "smear campaigns" is a personal attack. Socafan 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I, at least, am no targuing for suppression of allegations. On the other hand, to be perfectly blunt, your phrasing of a lot of things is pretty biased. The goal is not merely a presentation of all relevant facts, but a neutral one. Your additions have fallen pretty far afield of that one. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome to improve wordings and discuss it at talk, and JzG was welcome to do so all the time, too. Thank you for unprotecting the article and telling JzG that protecting in his preferred version is abuse of admin powers. Socafan 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again I find your characterisation of the dispute al but unrecognisable. When I said that the content had a place in the article but needed to be stated in carefully neutral terms per WP:BLP that is exactly what I meant. If you think that this [13] is an approppriately neutral edit then you have a lot to learn. Just zis Guy you know? 07:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your above comment in no way replies to what was written before. You have been warned for abuse of admin power, please stop it now, as well as your condescending tone. Socafan 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan again

Socafan (talk · contribs) is intent on ensuring that a section of the article on Lance Armstrong paints him in the most unfavourable light possible. Bear in mind that Armstrong may well be the most tested athlete in history and repeated drug tests and an official inquiry have all exonerated him. Here's Socafan's latest update, which is indistinguishable in tone from the ones for which I blocked him briefly before. [14]. Note thast the last para, which was neutralised from some heavy innuendo, has been deneutralised, and the guilt-by-association has been reintroduced. I need a second pair of eyes here.

He has filed an ArbCom case at WP:RFAr#JzG.

I have protected the article to prevent his repeated reversion to his preferred version (and to keep a spate of drive-by anons off); it is arguably better to block the problem editor and leave the article unprotected but that would prevent him taking part in the arbitration. I wouldn't like to call that one myself, please feel free to swap the article protection for a block and unprotection or possible semi-protection if you think it right. I feel very strongly that until Socafan at least acknowledges that there might be some merit in the idea that, for example, emphasising WADA's view over that of the official inquiry by the former head of the Dutch anti-doping agency which was strongly critical of WADA, might violate WP:NPOV, it would be unwise to allow him to edit the article. Socafan appears determined to assert his point of view, and to WP:OWN his Talk page; look in the history since many pertinent comments have been deleted as "trolling". Just zis Guy you know? 11:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not own my talk page either. Many editors remove talk from their pages, and you used double standards by punishing only one side - Netscott had removed talk from his page, too. You assume bad faith and claim I push a POV while I can easily say that what you do is abuse of admin powers to push yours. I have not broken the three revert rule - you have - and I explained my edits, provided source and used talk, you just made wholesale reverts. The WADA case needs to be discussed at the article talk page, not here, but only reporting that UCI rejected WADA's and leaving out that WADA continues to see Armstrong as a drug abuser and considers legal actions against UCI is clearly tendentious. Socafan 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad protection on Lance Armstrong

Could another administrator look at the protection of Lance Armstrong and consider reversing it? It appears that JzG reverted the article to the version he thinks best meets WP:BLP, and then protected it. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I already posted this above. Just zis Guy you know? 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourced information was removed without discussion, even the POV-tag, which should never been done before there is consensus. Please block this user for his abuse of powers. Socafan 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

False. There was discussion (or at least I attempted discussion, your refusal to take part or even acknowledge the validity of the underlying premise notwithstanding). The "sourced information", the sources of which are not uniformly reliable, was presented in a heavily slanted way, a point you have yet to accept despite it having been made by every single person who has so far looked at the case, including those Arbitrators who have commented. Even the people who think I acted wrongly in some respects appear to be unanimous in agreeing that there was a problem with what you were trying to add to the article. When people do not accept your arguments the solution is to find better arguments, not to repeat the same arguments only louder. Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You did remove the POV-tag. Twice. You refused to discuss the issues specifically at the article talk page, instead made wholesale reverts and spammed, reverted and blocked my talk page. In case you have doubts about sources discuss it at the article talk page, not here. An admin has undone your block and warned you for misconduct. Please follow your own advise and find arguments instead of abusing your powers. Socafan 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As with your edits to the Armstrong article and most of your descriptions of this dispute so far, I find your characterisation of Phil's comments unrecognisable. I was not "warned for misconduct", Phil agreed that your edits were problematic but pointed out, as one experienced admin to another less experienced, that I had made a mistake. As the discussions show without any ambiguity at all, I accepted his judgment and fully endorsed his subsequent actions; had any such comments been made here (where I posted each action at the time for peer-review; Phil's comment here was some hours after my own inviting review) I would have accepted them in similar vein. I also asked where I went wrong, and have discussed with him whether there is a more effective forum for peer-review of admin decisions. If you want to paint that as vindicating your actions then you are, I'm afraid, deluding yourself. Just zis Guy you know? 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You did remove a POV-tag twice, Phil warned you for abusing your admin power: I think most, though not all of the problems with Socafan's additions are in the quality of his writing, not the content. He's not really adding any material that shouldn't be cited... ... it's very, very bad to protect a page to a preferred version. (Note "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." and "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." "Note also that the protection policy does not support page protection to enforce BLP, and that protecting a page to deal with a user who has recently brought an arbcom case against you is TERRIBLE practice.. Now please leave it. Socafan 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson reverting Kitty May Ellis stuff

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

Hi guys, as a result of this deletion review, I changed my closure of this AfD (and deleted "Kitty May Ellis") and removed all quotations of her works from various articles. Wjhonson is reverting my edits. Now, I've already warned the user about revert-warring, but since I don't want to get into this revert war myself without knowing whether I'm in the right, I thought I'd make a note here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A deletion review that was not consensus. My article was a professionally-writen, complete and thoroughly-cited biography. A few attackers kept stating over and over the sources weren't verifiable, which is incorrect. Every source I used for the statements is verifiable and previously published in a reliable source. The deletion *review* came to an incorrect conclusion and there is no reason I should be penalized for trying to expand, valid and useful content on wikipedia. All the sources I used were posted to the article, and the quality was far superior, in my opinion, to the majority of biographies on here. And again every source is verifiable, the attackers took no attempt to even try to verify my sources. Wjhonson 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now, for the first time, been given the opportunity to read the this deletion review. I go to bed with KEEP, I wake up and everything I worked on for the past week — every single quote, every reference to this very notable person has been wiped by Deathphoenix. The sources are on wikisource, a sister project, and have been accepted there as documents of historical interest. Aside from that, I have posted portions of those quotes to various genealogical and history boards for the various communities and names mentioned, and each has expressed great interest in this source. And yet, one of the remarks on the review is that this person is not notable. It's relatively hard to reconcile the two positions. One person, a descendent of Chief Joseph wrote with profuse thanks that there is yet another source on her ancestor. The mere fact that a person is not universally known, is not a sufficient reason for stating that person is not *notable*. The notability page I would add, states that a person is also notable if they *should* be more widely known. If nothing else, this person should pass on that criteria. Wjhonson 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have some experience with genealogy. What are the links at wikisource so I can look it over? Never mind. This belongs on Wjohnson's talk page and DRV. Thatcher131 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment User:Wjhonson's conduct, the DRV should either be properly closed (and the old version possibly userfied?) as the closing admin has reverted his prior decision, or the history be restored until the DRV has run its course. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Skull 'n' Femurs evading block with an army of sockpuppets

Can an admin please check out [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Imacomp_{2nd)] for the evidence of user:Skull 'n' Femurs (a banned user by arbcom) and user:imacomp's army of sock which have been tormenting freemasonry. Also please see the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Imacomp against Imacomp to see the huge amount of problems we have had with him, not including his army of socks. Chtirrell 03:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

it's user:Skull 'n' Femurs, check your spelling. and please sign your posts with ~~~~ so that we may see who is posting them without looking in the page history. ~Chris ^{(squirrels!!)} 11:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the errors. I've fixed them. An oversight on my part :) Chtirrell 03:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu is back

Just popped up as NightmareChase27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Circeus 02:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the user Leyasu is in England and the NightmareChase account is in America, it seems somewhat ridiculous. Circues has also banned people from Brazil, Argentina and France claiming they are Leyasu as well. This is getting beyond a joke with this admin. As unless Leyasu is mystically hoping all around the globe, then Circues is abusing his admin powers. After checking his contributions as well, it isnt just articles relating to Leyasu that he is banning people from editing when they make an edit that doesnt agree with his own POV on a subject. Someone needs to do something about this admin. Metal Maiden 676 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the above user's second edit. Isopropyl 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum... My Leyasu sense is tingling. Metal Maiden 676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is displaying an incredible knowledge of the history of Heavy Metal pages (Even I have no idea where exactly is the poll she is refering to here). Also, MetalsMainLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similar username, has been blocked as a sockpuppet back in June. Observe also that this new user can already tell who blocked another user she apparently has no connection with. I rest my case. Circeus 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And you know the locations of these editors ... how? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They're not IPs. Try a checkuser with some of the registered accounts that are suspected sockpuppets of Leyasu and some of the IPs Leyasu has been blocked for using on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu#Log of blocks and bans. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Because of the increased activity from (81|86).*.*.* anons today, I have put in a new request for a checkuser involving Leyasu, MetalsMainLady, NightmareChase27, Metal Maiden 676, and several of the IPs that I think Leyasu has used recently. I have posted the request at WP:RFCU and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph again

After having served out his most recent 3RR block, User:Comanche cph has again reverted to his preferred version on Scandinavia four times today. He's also revert-warring on Normans where he's learned the clever new trick of marking a revert down as a "minor edit" and giving it the edit summary "spelling".[15] For those just in the user has diffs like these [16] [17] on his record and has been blocked four times already. He now says he is starting to lose his patience with Wikipedia.[18] I think the feeling may be mutual. Haukur 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. If he does it again, the penalties escalate. Will (message me!) 17:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the block length, Sceptre? I should imagine 3 days would be up from the 24 hr for 3RR, then a week, then 2 weeks and ArbCom. Geogre 18:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 48 hours. Will (message me!) 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph immediately evaded this block through his sockpuppet Supermos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which has still not been blocked. Tupsharru 08:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Or at least it looks exactly like a puppet. Maybe someone could run an IP check to make sure? Haukur 09:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kosher username?

This username seems like an ad, or at least a company account:

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

Is this a company? It seems like it. Should they get indeffed?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block just on the spam angle, since I would think it to pretty poor spam/advertising since it could be just about anywhere in the world. As for a group account, not sure. If it starts inserting links for carpetcleaning services then of course that is a different matter. --pgk^(talk) 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... could be, but as this is their only edit, I'd say let them be for now. Could be a productive contributor. Just watch out for creation of Advantage Carpet Cleaning or any link spam. </BEANS> --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pgk—as a company name, it's so generic that there's probably one in every large city, so even if they intended it to be self-promotional, it simply fails at that. Postdlf 22:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ikiroid; generic or not (there are 134 Google hits from here), this can be nothing other than the name of a business and, per WP:USERNAME, "Usernames intended for spamming or advertisement: Accounts with usernames that advertise a particular website, company, etc. (e.g. "visit [name of url]" ) are discouraged and may be blocked." In my view, simply using the name of a company is advertising for a company, and I've blocked it and left {{UsernameBlockedCompany}} on the talk page had I seen it in UC patrol. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

are discouraged and may be blocked Doesn't have to be, and as this seems a productive user, why not ask them to change usernames before you fire with the block button? Seems like it would be the sensible thing to do. -M^ask 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's been exactly one contribution, but I dropped a note on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

I ask for unblock on User:Panarjedde. The indefinite blocking was decided by User:Llywrch, who told me to come here.--151.47.76.121 01:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let your original 24 hour block expire, don't create sockpuppets, and those sockpuppets won't get banned. There is no reason to unblock Panarjedde, you were only using it to get around your original block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I told him to go to Wikipedia:Changing username to change his username, because I placed an indefinite block on the user name he wanted to use. He wants to use a new user name because I put a 24-hour block on his original one, Panairjdde; an Admin there is welcome to perform the necessary acts to change matters if they felt I behaved unreasonably. (Although I advise anyone so inclined to research his history of behavior both before & after the block. I also told him not to petition Tony Sideway or David Gerard for help, because they aren't as nice as I am. My apologies if he has ignored my advice & contacted them.)

BTW, I had to block this IP address because it was used for edits to Wikipedia unrelated to the business of his original block. Why don't you stop digging your hole deeper? -- llywrch 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - Since he says he closed his "Panairjdde" account, I put an indef block on that one. He has also stated he is going to leave Wikipedia countless times -- yet keeps coming back. Any Admin who believes he will stay on Wikipedia -- & trusts him to make useful contributions -- is welcome to undo those blocks. But if you do this, I expect you to mentor this user (or find one for him) & assume responsibility for his actions. -- llywrch 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said countless times, User:Panairjdde account is closed. Nobody can logon & it is no longer "mine" or of anybody else (now also User:Panairjdde is blocked indefinitely). My account is User:Panarjedde, and is blocked indefinitely, not for 24 hours. Why are you blocking my account indefinitely? What is the reason?

Furhtemore, User:Llywrch blocked two accounts indefinitely. On what basis?--151.47.99.159 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you have also said several times that you are leaving Wikipedia, you obviously don't need two accounts. If you simply meant that you are closing one account, then it is clear that you did this only to avoid the block for disruption. Although I originally blocked the second account because it appeared you were misusing a sockpuppet, your language convinces me that the second possiblity -- that you are avoiding my block -- is more likely. The block follows the person, not the account. I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Wikipedia for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption -- convince another Admin to lift it.

Panairjdde, there's far more to life & the Internet than Wikipedia. Use this time & find out. -- llywrch 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Wikipedia for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption — If the penalty for "disruption" (and you have yet to show me where this disruption was, right?) is 24 hours long, why the block is indefinitely long?

convince another Admin to lift it. Yes, like I do not know that everywhere is written that and admin should be careful when unblocking other admins' blocks! This matter has been here for some days, yet it is still a matter between you and me.

And, please, please, stop this patronizing tone with me! altought I originally tought you were simply an over-zealous admin, your language convinces me that you actually enjoy your "power", exercising it here, maybe because...--151.47.83.98 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(delayed response) It's very simple: as Zoe wrote above, sit out for 24 hours, explicitly tell us which user name you are going to use, & as long as you behave you will not be blocked. -- llywrch 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: A new User:LimWRtacCHsua appeared yesterday, making edits to many of the same articles Panairjdde had, & the same edits. When I asked him directly whether he was Panairjdde, I failed to get a straight answer -- but LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case. I can put 2 & 2 together; account also blocked. The name id also suspicious, BTW. -- llywrch 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have problems: "LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case"?! You put on my talk page a link to all this matter, and I am oddly aware?! Next time you don't want people to learn something, don't show them!--151.47.115.171 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Elitism article, and the creation of a fake AfD

It seems that a few vandals created some new sockpuppets in order to create a fake AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism (3rd nomination), thereby deleting the article Elitism. It seems that in the confusion of a fake AfD, the article was actually removed and replaced with a {{deletedpage}} tag. As of now I have fully protected the article and reverted it to the version prior to the first vandalism. The account that seems to have been behind the orchestration is Jake Berkeley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is likely a sock of either jake remmington, or some other long term vandal. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Likely a combination nickname of Jake Remington and Jeb Berkley, nicknames which are listed to be associated with the WP:NCV. For those who saw the AfD page before it got deleted, humorous things like "# delete article was craeted by NCV." are listed. The AfD, from what I can tell from my left-open window on the now-deleted AfD page, it was replicating many of the post-closure edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism. There's probably more interesting stuff also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism (2nd nomination), but it is deleted. There's also a recent post to WP:AIV which notes many more socks used to try to 'vote-stack' the original AfD post closure. Kevin_b_er 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Barack Obama

Barack Obama (talk · contribs) is using the name of a real person and doing nothing but vanadalizing pages. --waffle iron ^talk 04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been blocked. --waffle iron ^talk 04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:GvvernoI

This user has created a username that is very similar to User:Gwernol's (this user here uses two vs instead of a w and a capital i instead of a lowercase L). On this user's userpage, it says the user got permission to use the name from Gwernol (which, judging by the user talk page, isn't entirely true). However, even if Gwernol gives the user permission to use the name, I feel that permission ought to be overriden. The fact of the matter is the username will confuse many editors into thinking it's really Gwernol when it's not. The user, despite his intentions (I have yet to fully understand what they are), ought to be asked to create a new username and (on this current account) indefinitely blocked for impersonation. -- joturner 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As the user GvvernoI has a whole ten (surviving) edits to his name, and has been warned for vandalism and personal attacks, I've just plonked the account. If he wants to create a new one, he can. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ive nuked the following created by this user: Category:Administrators requiring discipline, and {{Template:Blockabuse}}, both of which are intended to be put on the blocking admin's page. Coupled with List of unruly Admins which User:Gwernol deleted, methinks this wannabe is a sock of someone disruptive and indefblocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting sprotection for article and own userpage/usertalkpage

South Central Farm was recently hit by vandalism by Cumbuj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked. Then, 152.163.101.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and then Roxeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit the page with the same reason, trying to sprotect their own vandalism. When I reverted their edits and warned Roxeco, my userpage was vandalised with the anus picture. I'm requesting that South Central Farm, my user page and my talk page be sprotected from these morons. Ryulong 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking through edits, I've found out I got hit by User:WatchtowerJihad. Please help me. Ryulong 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My user page has been sprotected now, but I still think South Central Farm should be sprotected if it keeps getting hit by WatchtowerJihad (not sure if my talk should be sprotected, though). Ryulong 07:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Matter resolved - User page deleted to remove vandalism, recreated and sprotected. --Alf ^melmac 07:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(Article is now requested protection at relevant page and Ryulong's talk page is on my watchlist for any further vandalism). --Alf ^melmac 08:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 82.35.24.169

Please consider blocking the user with the IP address 82.35.24.169. He continually vandalizes Wiki pages such as H. Bruce Mitchell and Maria Kanelliswith mentions of "hen fap," and has had numerous warnings, many of which he removed from his user page. He is a simple nuisance and I'm getting annoyed by watching over him. Please consider blocking him/her. Thank you. Chad1m 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h abakharev 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:True tibet

Transferred from WP:AIV:

True tibet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See talk page - that should be self-explaniatory. Politically motivated username with derogatory spam about Wikipedia on it.  Killfest2  09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we are allowed to be POV on our own talk pages, not sure about the username. abakharev 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if it's inflammatory (which the Nepal incident is)  Killfest2  09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I have immense empathy for Tibetans in their current situation, the problem this user has is the same we all have with history in that to a large extent it's written by the winning/dominant side, put this alongside the need to be able cite verifable sources for data and I'm not surprised by the views expressed on their talk page. --Alf ^melmac 09:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this username clearly refers to a political dispute which will produce problems no matter what. I've blocked him indefinitely for having an inappropriate username and offered him to get a new one and contribute constructively. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism on Nostradamus talkpage User:Davkal

While I admit that the conversation between User:Davkal and myself has been barely civil, I will not tolerate racism.

To wit [19] "Excellent argument dude, how's the homies in South Central. (emphasis added) Diff: [20]. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Need article protection now - weeks long edit war escalating (Situation has been fixed - page full protected)

Situation has been fixed - page full protected
A user has been continuously adding insults about American International School and how everyone thinks it sucks, even saying that it's not verifiable in the insult section. It has been explained at least 10 times to this user but they continue. Has used personal attacks, multiple sockpupets and has vandalized by userpage. I really couldn't care less about the personal attacks or vandalism, just please get this page protected without the slander. See article history --mboverload@ 11:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be better off at WP:RFP. Still, if it's only one user, you might want to file a user conduct RfC instead of full-blown protection. Isopropyl 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:RFP page, I totally forgot about that. This user has used like 5 sockpuppets now and refuses to even discuss anything. It has been explained many times. --mboverload@ 11:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just added another sockpuppet --mboverload@ 11:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just used ANOTHER sockpuppet. That's 5 DIFFERENT user account not counting IP edits --mboverload@ 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Protected. If you'd like to tag the socks I will block them. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  Here they are:

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

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

  Sarc1pedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

  Their main account: Pediamedia1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  --mboverload@ 12:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• When this user has decided which account to use I will reduce the block on that account to 1 week. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FA vandalism

By User:64.12.116.10. See this. Several times... speaks for itself. EuroSong ^talk 12:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There were no warnings for awhile, gave him t4 abakharev 12:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs)

misfired this time. I made a stupid edit here [21] as I was responding to uncivility, but cooled down and removed the attack myself 10 minutes later [22]. Some three and half hours after I have removed the attack, without being told to do so, JzG placed a warning on my talkpage about a thing I already undid. Warnings, blocks etc on wikipedia should be preventive, not punitive, whereas this is purely punitive, and could also be perceived as bossing. I have kindly (with Please) asked JzG to remove the warning from my talk page. Anyone please back me up on this. Azmoc 12:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't even responded to you on his talk page yet (which was only 14 minutes before you posted this). Please try to get in contact with a user before comming here. I'm not commenting on your case. --mboverload@ 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• My two cents, I don't think your modification was enough - the contributions from you on that page seemed generally to breach what I would look for in civil discussions and I think the warning should stay.--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Zoe's original comment that Azmoc responded to with his original personal attack: Yet again the case of a supposedly brand-new user, who has yet to make any edits to article space, trying to tell us how to run Wikipedia. Yawn. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (→Netscott) 12:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I didn't think Zoe's contribution was edifying either, but the discussion point is, should the warning be removed from Azmoc's talk page. I don't think so. Should a reminder be placed on Zoe's page? Possibly, but separate issue.--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • What I said, what I did was a personal attack, but I cooled off and removed it myself, long before someone placed a warning on my talkpage. This directly contradicts the preventive not-punitive common sense in which admins should use the blocks and warnings. Moreover, the sentence I left there is (quote): I find your stated belief that you are running wikipedia more than the other (yet inexperienced) users unbelievable. It doesn't say anything about Zoe him/herself, it just says that I strongly disagree with his/her beliefs, unless we live in some environment in which disagreeing with an admin is a personal attack. This admin-cabal argumenting like well, well, you are right here, but this other thing you did is wrong anyway so we will do nothing against our co-admins is really driving me nuts. Azmoc 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's a pro-forma warning. The mature response is to accept the criticism, as you partially do (even with the modification it is still unacceptable to accuse an admin of abusing privileges in a content dispute unless you can cite solid evidence) and not do it again. Wikilawyering about exactly how incivil you were is not the way to go. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Look that is enough. I am not wikilawyering here, I am citing no policies etc. You are the one who placed a warning for a comment that has been removed. You provided the removed edit as a reason. Placing a warning for one reason and searching for another reason (it is still unacceptable..) you are actually lawyering your own misconduct here. Remove the warning now, this time without please. Azmoc 13:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, instead of responding to my original proposal, JzG made yet another "I would like to see your full history" comment, then said "The cabal rejects this proposal. That is all. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)". What I did, what was the original IP I used to edit before I registered etc. is no bussiness of JzGs' and if he didn't want to respond to the proposal, and came there only to make comments on me and my edit history, he shouldn't have said anything at all. Azmoc 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we do. How else are we supposed to establish the context for your proposed policy? Just zis Guy you know? 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the edits I see a distinct similarity between Ackoz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Azmoc (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), quite apart from the similarity usernames. Does anyone else notice this? Just zis Guy you know? 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the warning in question. Had I been JzG I wouldn't have added in the first place, equally had I been Azmoc I wouldn't have brought the matter hear. forgive and forget is what I say. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed words to live by. --mboverload@ 13:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, happy enough with that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs):RfC

Is anybody here willing to help me fill a RfC agains JzG here? There are no pro-forma warnings on Wikipedia. There are warnings or no warnings. Pro-forma warnings are just a form of bullying. After I have proven, that the original reason for warning was removed even before the warning was placed, JzG is searching for new reasons (see his "it is still unacceptable.." comments) or calling the warning pro-forma. Now he is joking about the "cabal", disparaging my comments and complaints and clearly trying to irritate me with those comments. Azmoc 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You got a little warning. Lets order Global Thermonuclear War! --mboverload@ 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No way. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I got friggin BLOCKED for reasons that I thought were baseless. All I did was calmly ask for comment. Calm down. I know you feel wronged but in the end it's just a warning. --mboverload@ 13:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, if you got friggin BLOCKED for nothing, it is wrong. That's why I proposed the easy-gain-easy-lose adminship on the Village Pump. Azmoc 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you consider Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to be an entire collection of pro-forma warnings? I would... -- ChrisO 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this even appropriate on this page? You've already made your complaint, now you want to escalate to an Rfc and you're issuing a blanket invitation for someone to second you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos (talk · contribs)

I have just been harshly treated (erasing two weeks of research) by the user "AnonMoos". This is my first addition to Wikipedia, and was apparently not in accordance with the style guide. I can understand a correction and brief instruction or hints on how to complete it, but not the casual erasure and harsh "you got it wrong, do it like this".

This is at total discord with the Wikipedian / community approach that I'd come to think Wikipedia stood for. Frankly, I'm now wondering why I should bother to extend it, rather than being excited (as I was) at the thought of participating.

Frankly, this user's attitude to newbies is more than likely turning every person away from Wikipedia that he "corrects" in such a harsh manner - in short: hindering more than he helps.

If he 'corrects' 10 articles each week, but turns 10 people away from contributing - he's simply preventing growth, rather than aiding proper growth by helping newbs.

I'm annoyed, and frankly very angry at such treatment - I appreciate his "help", but NOT his attitude.

I'm happy to be corrected - but not smacked down like a little child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Tiberiusgrant (talk • contribs)

Which article, please? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've spoken to this user on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Haham hanuka (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora Venter

User is the creator of the article and has been edit warring around it in the past. He is not an admin (failed the nomination 6 times) and is often barred from using Wikipedia, mostly for 3RRing. He just single handed closed the AfD of this article as "keep", putting a label on the talk page referring to another AfD. A vote to delete the article was removed by him, referring to his "AfD closure". He has also "closed" other AfDs about which he was edit warring and has been warned about this behavior. I would like an administrator to look into these issues, also since I do not know precisely how to deal with them myself. gidonb 13:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: he "closed" it once more. gidonb 14:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to gidonb for catching this. IMO, the article is a clear delete, but even clearer is the rule that non-admins don't close AfD's they've "voted" on. Eluchil404 14:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, Eluchil404. Haham haunka had done exactly the same to an article I listed for AfD. He was warned at the time, but then recreated the article right after it was deleted through the AfD. gidonb 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This AfD has been listed since July 7. On July 11 it was closed by Haham hunka as keep despite his voting in it. It was reopened on July 13, then closed again that day by Haham hanuka. It was reopened today. Since this is buried way back in July 7's AfDs, would an admin be willing to take a look and relist this on today's AfDs because of all the issues that have been had with it being closed and opened several times over? Metros232 14:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly my concern, Metros323. Sounds like a great solution to the problem, at least of this AfD. gidonb 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Restarted the AFD. Will (message me!) 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out as I did at the AfD, Haham hanuka was trying to push the AfD to his side by advertising it at user talk pages: Jackys cy's and Seidenstud's, specifically. Only two, but AfD advertising is just asking for trouble. Ryulong 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow trying to edit by proxy

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AMorrow tries to edit by proxy -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Soaring Eagle (talk · contribs)

I'm concerned about this users actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buggin Malone and Talk:Leonard Peltier, and am looking for some kind of comment/help. Soaring Eagle has posted personal attacks on other users[23][24][25][26][27][28]. Thank you. Yanksox 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

Per the terms of his probation, Guy Montag has been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestaking is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --Leifern 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of bad faith. Furthermore, see, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [29], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: [30]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Samanello

Bot or user adding same text to multiple pages. IrfanAli 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Newyorkattention and sockpuppet

Minor problem: New user Newyorkattention (talk · contribs) put an plug for something called "The Attention Store" (4 hits in Google) into Attention economy. That was their first edit, and seemed to be an attempt at advertising. So I reverted it. The same material was then reinserted by 66.108.106.207 (talk · contribs), so that's probably a sockpuppet. --John Nagle 17:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: anon user has begun a dialogue with this user. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Soukar

This rather strange article is the sole contribution from 0anonymous0 (talk · contribs). Googling for "+Soukar +Bsharie" finds nothing. My guess is that this user really dislikes one or more people named Soukar. Would some more experienced Wikipedians please take a look? Thanks, CWC(talk) 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

db-attack. Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More pleasantries from User:Repmart

Quoting from an email I have received from this delightful person today:

"You have shown your ineptitude and incompetence with blinding brilliance. You are a true moron.

You have now emailed me with a threat where you abuse your position.

I live in the UK. In the UK we have freedom. I intend to tall my story with nothing but the TRUTH on my side. You are a part of THE problem on Wikipedia. Administrative bullies.

Here's my latest quote from YOU that WILL make it onto all the different discussion groups and forums where I intned to paste the story aobut YOU and The JPS.

"If you DO make such a page, don't expect your block to be undone. Zoe" The quote speaks volumes Zoe, you moron. You are going to suspend me if I tell people how you and The JPS are administrative bullies and how you BOTH use Wikipedia for your own political agendas and how THE JPS uses it to sell stuff on Ebay.

With regards to your threat about suspending this 1 User ID, you can lick my hairy balls.

I am not only going to make 'such a page' but it I am going to put a lot of hours into pasting the story and I intend to email 'THE BOARD' every day until they respond. I will uise as many different email addresses as it takes to see your bullying corrected.

You are a thig and you can F.O.

GOING DOWN DUM DUM!

Good luck.

J Smith / Repmart"

I will be blocking his Repmart account indefinitely as soon as I finish posting this. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow that sucks/what a douche. If you need any help feel free to let me know. --mboverload@ 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not particularly worried, I would be more concerned if I were The JPS, but I don't think he's particularly concerned, either. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Marionette Accounts

The *Marionette accounts seem to be proliferating. As soon as one is blocked, another pops up. They have gone from User:AnkletMarionette to User:WhiteAnkletMarionette toUser:ZaffreAnkletMarionette and everything in between. Obviously blocking the accounts is not working to address the issue. Perhaps something else can be done. ThoughtControl 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a checkuser to get the IP or IPs then contact the ISP, most have an acceptable use policy. --pgk^(talk) 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We begun blocking them since we thought they were PoolGuy, and later on, the socks kept coming and the "prevent account creation" thingie is not working (I think), and all keep on wanting some admin action reversed. I agree, contact the ISP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Those flags have no meaning for named accounts, though autoblocks should still have the same effect... --pgk^(talk) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

When I asked, I was told that the block settings on a username block would not affect the settings of the autoblock; autoblocks continue to be full blocks in all cases. I've not tested this, I'm just going with what I was told. In a related note, it appears to be SBC (formerly Southwestern Bell, now AT&T in what looks like an attempt to resurrect Ma Bell) pool IPs, rather than AOL, so block away. Essjay (Talk) 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

These two unblock requests appear to be coming from various AOL IPs - here's one: [31] and another [32]. These might be a troll jumping on the bandwagon though. I personally have blocked:

User:ZaffreAnkletMarionette User:XanthicAnkletMarionette User:MaroonAnkletMarionette User:LapisLazuli User:LapisLazuliAnkletMarionette User:KhakiAnkletMarionette User:JadeGreenAnkletMarionette User:HunterGreenAnkletMarionette User:GreenAnkletMarionette User:EcruAnkletMarionette User:AnkletMarionette User:BlueAnkletMarionette

And I'm sure that's not all of them. If you see these though, please block ASAP, they start making edits right away. pschemp | talk 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at User:MasterOfColor, as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked that too. --pgk^(talk) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:CarrotSoup abakharev 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was, perhaps it is best to try something else entirely. Blocking the accounts just creates more and more IPs that are autoblocked. At some point this has got to be affecting other Wikipedians, because it does not seem to impact this user. Maybe someone could find out what he wants and get the issue resolved - something seems unresolved. That way Admin time wouldn't be spent looking for the accounts, researching the accounts, and blocking them. This can't be the only way to address users. ThoughtControl 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We already know what Poolguy/Marionette wants. He wants to use multiple accounts abusively. He can't. The issue will be resolved by making him go away. That's it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right. The PoolGuy account was around for years without any problems. What makes you think he wants to be abusive? Sure lots of Admins have blocked those accounts, but he seems very consistent in bringing up one issue of improper administrative action. Perhaps someone could figure out that resolving that would resolve the issue. Seems to me the inappropriate block, inconsistent with a written Wikipedia policy is the issue. Why is that ignored? GarageDoorOpener 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

because you are a sock. Duh. *zap* pschemp | talk 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The disappointing thing is trying to explain Wikipedia policy to Admins. However, here goes:

"There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."

"I would say that multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny.[1] (2003)"

This is a quote from Mr. Wales on the WP:SOCK page. To translate, users can have multiple accounts, so long as they don't use it to violate policy. GoldToeMarionette was a multiple account, however it did not violate policy. This is what is actually written down as Wikipedia policy. Please explain how this can possibly be unclear to those with Admin authority. I am not an Admin, and it makes complete sense to me. ContributerGreen 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are so obviously a sock, why do you even bother? pschemp | talk 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. I would think that would mean something to Admins too. Why do you want to make a user who was a good but small contributor go away? How is that good for the project? QualityCounts 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting, these users were very anxious to comment and contribute when it is all about blocking. When thought is challenged and forced to think about the policy and its application these Admins avoid it. They think it is best to just block, because blocking makes problems go away. Blocking does not solve the fundamental problem. I need someone to deal with the fundamental problem. Does anyone here have the capacity to address it? A few of you have proven you can block an account, congratulations. Now, try to actually address the issue.

Unfortunately, someone will block this account too, thinking that will make a difference. How disappointing, that will be the limit of their Administrator capacity. Instead, hopefully someone will rise to address the issue. Anyone? It just takes communicating, not blocking. ReadingRabbit 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The probem has been repeatedly described to you, it went through an arbcom case, and since neither was to your liking you ignored it. Communication takes two sides, one to listen something you've repeatedly refused to do. At this point there is little more to be said. --pgk^(talk) 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

IP group writing vulgar edit summaries

The 87.79.3.2XX IPs have been writing vulgar edit summaries in the sandbox. I know it's just the sandbox, but there the policy still applies there, right? Something needs to be done. I warned them on one IP and they switched to a different one.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(nastiness removed, user blocked for 24 hours for being uncivil and WP:POINT) (And yes I'd block anyone who wrote that, even if they were an admin) pschemp | talk 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, trolling and "disruption to make a point" come to mind. (→Netscott) 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So is anyone gonna make the block?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

read up please. pschemp | talk 00:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Isequals

I noticed a while back that User:Sasquatch almost indef blocked Isequals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being a troll, but decided to give her another chance. Since then, her conduct hasn't inproved any since she was last asked to stop. She made racist remarks in her edit summaries calling someone a "nigger" [33] and then going on to make personal attacks against Francs2000 today. [34] Can someone take care of this? — The King of Kings 23:12 July 16 '06

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — The King of Kings 23:47 July 16 '06

Conrad Devonshire

Carrying this over from User talk:Theresa knott, during a routine checkuser of vandal-account creations (in order to discover and block the IP, halting the creations) I discovered that User:Conrad Devonshire has been creating malicious vandal usernames for some time now. A small listing of said usernames is listed on Theresa's talk page; a relevant, and particularly indicative, snippet is:

04:57 User talk:Gwernol (2 changes; Page history) [Conrad Devonshire (2×)]

m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Some usernames you might consider blocking...)

m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (Some usernames you might consider blocking...)

04:42 (User creation log) [Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!!; A erection lasting longer than four hours; FickenKont; Foot-long penis; Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong?; Vandalbot Alpha]

04:42 (cur; last) . . Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong? (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:40 (cur; last) . . Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!! (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:39 (cur; last) . . FickenKont (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:38 (cur; last) . . Foot-long penis (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:37 (cur; last) . . A erection lasting longer than four hours (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:36 (cur; last) . . Vandalbot Alpha (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:34 User talk:Conrad Devonshire (diff; hist) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Brfx)

I reported the matter to the Arbitration Committee via thier private mailing list, in order to get a sanity check (though it's very obvious as checkuser results go) and for advice on how to proceed. I also requested that Conrad email me urgently; instead of doing so, he responded with a curt response that he did not pass out his email. Theresa made a similar request (as an Arbitrator) and was met repeatedly with a similar result, before being reluctantly provided with an address. His response, on her talk page, was less than satisfactory.

At this point, he's made it public, and the appropriate avenue to decide what to do is here. I count 18 usernames on three IPs (there are dozens more, those 18 were just handy); they are not, as he suggests, dopplegangers. Indeed, he warned one of them shortly after using it to vandalize: [35]. Sadly, this sort of thing is all to common; this is at least twice in the last week that I've come across otherwise legitimate contriubutors engaging in vandalism via sockpuppets.

Ideas on what to do with Conrad are greatly appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is he creating vandal accounts so he can revert it himself and look like a great vandal fighter? Is it all obvious or is some of it insidious? Thatcher131 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he won't do it again, now that he knows everyone else knows.....is it worth punishing him with a block for something did in the past and probably won't do again? I don't know what prentitive measures arbcom could do anyway.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, were these accounts created on his IP or while he was logged in? I thought you couldn't create an account while logged in.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about this... but a post on ANI is got to be rather punishing in and of itself given the content we're seeing. Conrad Devonshire'll likely never hear the end of this. (→Netscott) 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, one gets the impression that you might be obligated to do quite a bit of work corresponding to all of these sockpuppets. If that is indeed the case then if for no other reason that alone should merit a good long block. (→Netscott) 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My thought was along the same lines. While posting to ANI might be punishment enough (depending on how badly he wants to be seen as a good wikipedian) I would rather see probation at the very least. However, only a checkuser would have the ability to monitor his probation (Essjay, Mackensen, and the members of Arbcom). So I say it should be up to them. Is there a checkuser willing to vouch for him? Thatcher131 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Responding to a few things (I went to dinner and the thread exploded!):

• As much as you'd think it wouldn't happen, it's not uncommon to see someone vandalizing and then cleaning up thier own mess. I don't know if it's some kind of guilt, or if it is because they want to elevate thier public image, but it happens too frequently.
• He may or may not do it again; I guarantee if he does it again he'll do it in a way that is much harder to detect. Rarely does ignoring the problem cause it to go away; it just cases it to hide deeper beneath the surface.
• You can create accounts while logged in, but it causes them to be logged under your name, as in "User:A created User:B" rather than just "created User:B". If you log out before doing it, or do it in a separate browser, then it doesn't do that. This is not a case of "someone else was on the IP at the time"; dynamic IPs do sometimes change, but they don't switch to a vandal for twenty minutes and then back to you, as shown above.
• There is a reasonable amount of work that goes into this, but it's what I'm here to do. My concern is that further problems be prevented, as each one of these accounts takes admin time to block, often multiple admin's time as they all simultaneously block, and the time of others to tag the accounts. Additionally, it takes checkuser time, as at least one checkuser (me) is actively checking accounts from these types of sprees in order to block the IPs and prevent further damage.
• I've yet to see any response from him on the subject, and certainly no remorse. Indeed, he has been very uncooperative so far, and I don't forsee a change in that. As I indicated above, I think if he's learned anything, it's to be smarter about his sockpuppetry. I'm not willing to spend the next year checking up on him constantly, and I doubt any of the other checkers have the time.

Beyond seeing that no further damage is done to Wikipedia, I'd like to know the community's take on this, and what they feel should be done; as I've said, I find it all too often, and if the community is unconcerned, then I will just keep it to myself from now on and not waste my or other's time with public reports. Essjay (Talk) 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should happen to Conrad, but I'd like to voice that things like this definitely need to be reported. These actions are damaging to Wikipedia, take up Wikipedia resources, and consume administrator time. An ANI thread is the very least we can do, and whatever response is decided to be taken, hopefully actions like this will be greatly discouraged in the future. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is definitely disruptive behavior, and a fairly long block is warranted. Enough time, for instance, that Conrad is forced to take a break from WP and, if he chooses to become active again later, will perhaps reevaluate the point of doing so. His behavior is very at-odds with our goal of creating an encyclopedia here. Mangojuice^talk 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. how long is fairly long? pschemp | talk 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not less than 2 weeks or otherwise some amount per sock (like 4 hours) added up. (→Netscott) 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've alerted the user in question. We shouldn't assume that he'll find the thread, it's better to be frank with him and let him know.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ulp. I'm feeling a little uncomfortable about a remark of mine here: I start to think that WoW (and the like) and certain WP editors need each other as virus writers and virus "protection" merchants need each other. Which was written largely for CD's, er, benefit. He replied (I hope to the comment as a whole, and not merely this part): "I am beginning to see things your way." -- Hoary (mightily bored by vandals and trolls), 03:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Has he made any statement that this behavior will stop? He should in my opinion be blocked at least until he does so; certainly there is precedent for that -- for example the User:Wonderfool case from months and months ago. (Yes; such a promise is made under duress and may have little real value; but it's all we can do.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - I admit that it is true that I have been creating accounts. I am not going to play dumb or lie to you about it. I will explain, but not rationalise my reasons for doing so. One of my reasons is that which was mentioned, that it would give me an oppourtunity to show my willingness to fight vandalism by reporting them myself. Another is that I suffer from certain mental problems including schizophrenia. One symtom of my mental problems is that at times, certain thoughts which I find particularily inappropriate or unpleasant inter my mind and my mind cannot let go of them. By creating accounts with names that reflect these thoughts, it in a way has helped to isolate them from my mind. It is difficult for me to explain how this works, but doing so helped to relieve my mind of unpleasant thoughts. I also created accounts and/or made vandal edits in a few cases simply to see how efficiently Wikipedia would respond. But, as I said, I am not trying to rationalise what I have done. Though I mentioned having mental problems, I do have control over my own actions and could have found other ways to deal with my problems. And as for wanting to show my willingness to fight vandals, I should have done so by actually fighting vandals rather than inventing vandals to fight. I apologise for what I have done and promise to discontinue it immediately. Please note however that my contributions testify to my desire to be a respectable editor. I regret that I have perhaps permenantly damaged my reputation as a Wikipedia editor, but accept that I am to blame for it. I believe that I do deserve a block for this and shall take a break from editing whether I receive one or not.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was very big of Conrad to come clean with the above, and I commend him for that. It must be quite difficult to have all of this aired under the public eye of ANI. However, it's pretty clear that his actions were egregious, and a punitive block in the range of one week is very much in order. -- Samir धर्म 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Conrad for your explanation and apology. It shows maturity. Personally I feel that you do need a block but I will not apply it myself as I am an arbitrator and I have been acting as an arbitrator in this incident. I feel that if I block you, the rest of the community will be reluctant to disagree with me and i don't want that to happen. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week per the above, pending further consensus here. -- Samir धर्म 08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block.--MONGO 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Echoed. Conrad is taking a Wikibreak; this is a good idea. Something tells me that the embarrassment will be enough to ensure no repeat. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Except we don't do punative blocks, right? - brenneman 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron here. I have followed this case carefully and see no reason for a block in the circumstances pertaining now. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how our wikisociety functions. Would a block be preventative if in enforcing one other users will not engage in such behavior (or alternatively if they are currently engaged in similar behavior now, stop)? I understand the logic for no block... but this individual has made quite a bit of work that others are forced to deal with. This should be a citable example for what to do in the future. (→Netscott) 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's another excellent reason to not block--some people might be tempted to block in similar circumstances in future. --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you and Brenneman are correct. To a certain extent at this point whether this user is blocked or not may be immaterial as he's decided to not edit on his own for some time... and if he indeed abides by that then a block'd be redundant (if we're talking strictly about preventative in the sense of this one user). I think in a similar situation in the future Essjay or an ArbCom member should be inclined to just immediately block and note the reasoning in the block log and then proceed to inform the community of the back story and if given an explanation and promise not to continue that is on an equivalent level as Conrad Devonshire's, then subsequently lift the block. Essentially in my view some sort of an easily verifiable history (ie: block log note) should accompany such behavior, no? (→Netscott) 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I find creating multiple inappropriate usernames a blockable offense whether it's preventive or not. It's something explicitly forbidden policy and caused multiple people a lot of work. Oh yeah, don't forget to block the all the accounts except for the main one. If he can control himself now he's shown he can own up, I have no problem if he edits in a week's time. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  My approach to this is that I'd support a block if he presented an ongoing risk to the encyclopedia. While there might be an argument for blocking as a deterrent, this isn't compatible with our blocking policy. Moreover if we were seen to block someone who came clean and promised to stop, it would almost certainly deter other editors from coming clean about antisocial activities. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with the principles of Tony's reasoning (but I have no comments on the specific case at hand). Haukur 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think you can call this "coming clean". From Theresa's talk page I see first he claims it was a joke and dopplegangers, then insisting on not being treated as a villain until uncontrovertable evidence is provided. Only once shown he has been caught red-handed does he admit it and promise not to do it again. NoSeptember 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I think Conrad has resolved this quite well by taking a voluntary wikibreak. In the circumstances, I wouldn't object to an unblock with the annotation that the user is taking a short voluntary wikibreak in view of his bad faith actions. A block is also okay, but I think it's a little worrying in the circumstances where he has finally come completely clean. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. I reckon Tony's right. Is there any preventive action required? Sounds like there isn't. Is Conrad generally a problem editor? I'd say not, from an admittedly quick review of his contribs and Talk. Conrad has taken his punishment like a man and taken a voluntary Wikibreak; if he wants that to be enforced to avoid temptation then fine, otherwise it seems a bit - well, vindictive. Just zis Guy you know? 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am unblocking, based mostly on the range of opinions expressed in this thread (my gut feelings steer me to believe that punative blocks do have some utility). But when Tony and Aaron agree on something, it's probably a good rule of thumb that that something should be done. NoSeptember -- I agree the "coming clean" is unevaluatable at the least. Still, he'll pose just as much threat a week from now as now, so I don't believe the community agreeing to lift this one-week block is harmful. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that I've wasted my time a) checking up on the problem, b) sorting it out, c) notifying the Arbitration Committee, d) trying to resolve it with the user, e) reporting it here, and f) thinking anybody would care. There *is* a side to this besides "Oh poor Conrad, he's been naughty but we shouldn't hold it against him": There's the dozens of administrators and other RC patrolers that have been affected, there are the users who have been impersonated and/or attacked in these usernames, and there is the time of the Arbitration Committee any myself that has been wasted dealing with this. I think NoSeptember hit it on the head: He *didn't* come clean until he was *forced* to, and displayed defiance right up until he posted here with a miraculous change of heart, deep understanding of his conduct, and profound sorrow for the trouble he's caused. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced in the least; I think I understand now why so many of the longer-term checkusers have stopped doing this sort of thing: The end result is that nobody wants to do anything about it, and you've wasted several hours (about six, in this case) dealing with it. Essjay (Talk) 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In my opinion Conrad Devonshire is on final warning. I think that's enough of a result. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, why did you not just immediately block? (→Netscott) 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect for the same reason I generally don't immediately block when I find anomalies doing CheckUser: it's best to have another party verify your suspicions before going public with serious accusations. If I, as a CheckUser, block sua sponte based solely on CheckUser evidence, and someone complains, I am in the situation of having to justify my block with the reason "I have evidence that supports this block, but I cannot show it to you". This doesn't go over well. Having the evidence reviewed by other trustworthy individuals at least results in a united front before a block goes in, with multiple seemingly reasonable people who will stand behind it. If the other people won't stand behind it, then it would have been a bad idea to block in the first place, eh?

I view my role, when using CheckUser, as that of a security officer. It's my job to examine the evidence and report on what I find to others to decide what to do as a result of my findings. It's a way to increase accountability for a position which carries a great deal of trust and responsibility. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your fine detailed response makes good sense Kelly Martin thanks for sharing the logic there. What is your opinion on how Conrad Devonshire's case should be handled? (→Netscott) 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I believe prevention extends beyond the individual user concerned, the message we seem to be sending out here is that provided you apologise when caught then no problem. --pgk^(talk) 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the message. Wikipedia is extremely generous with second chances. Unfortunately, consideration of the effects on other users is often neglected (as Essjay pointed out, or as in the case of the unblocking of Blu Aardvark and MSK). By unblocking him are we sending the signal that we are more interested in rehabilitating one part-time vandal than in respecting the efforts of dozens of vandal fighters? A long block or outright ban would send the message that his disruptive activities and their negative effects on others so outweigh his positive contributions that we would rather not have him around anymore. (On the other hand such a ban would be largely symbolic as there is no practical way of keeping Conrad from continuing to create more abusive accounts--he just couldn't get "credit" for reverting them anymore.) Thatcher131 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that is really the message, nor do I think Essjay has wasted his time, although I see where he is coming from. Bear in mind that blocking isn't the only consequence in play in this case; for example, Conrad Devonshire clearly had ambitions to become an admin and realistically that will not happen now. Alerting the community to this kind of fraud is very much a concrete result in of itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that if you apologise and stop then all should be forgiven. Call me a cynic but we only have his word that he is taking a wikibreak. For all we know he is happily editing (and trolling for that matter) with yet another sock. I don't think unblocking him was the best thing to do, it gives a rather wishy washy effect. A week was a very short block in the first place IMO and it should have stood unless there was overwhelming support here to undo it - which there wasn't. Having said that, what's done is done. I think he needs to be carefully watched and if he shows any sign of his past bad behaviour he needs to be community banned. If OTOH he stops fucking about he should be completely forgiven. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Can't say I'm pleased with the way this has evolved. We have a user who has made multiple vandal-only accounts, and has attempted to improve his cred by "reporting them". He also did not come clean when first approached about it. Heartfelt apologies or not, there must be something said on a community front that such behaviour is unacceptable. I think that entails a block. Call it punitive if you want. There was no consensus to undo the action -- Samir धर्म 22:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still support the block. Not to discredit the otherwise good work of Conrad, the rules need to be applied evenly to all. Essjay did the right thing. Conrad isn't necessarily eliminated from becoming an admin someday. Enduring a week long block and then returning to solid editing for a period of time will suffice.--MONGO 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'm restoring the week-long block, based on the evolving input here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment that we don't do punative blocks. We clearly do however do preventative blocks. We can support a block here while at the same time remembering that we're not "empowered" and don't hand out spankings. - brenneman ^{L} 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User Evading Block and Violating NPOV

• Earlier today CheckUser confirmed that two IP's (67.71.85.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.228.151.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) who had been violating PoV guidelines on Michael Di Biase were both socks of VaughanWatch, however, they have yet to be blocked. Within the hour, a new user GoodFaithEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped up, and lo and behold, his first and only edit is to revert the Di Biase article back to the one favoured by the VW socks. Then a bit later, 64.231.242.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started, again, first and edit is back to VW's preferred version, he has since proceeded to slander a number of politicians with no basis in fact, and add nonsense warnings to my page. These users are clearly all VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a proven sockfarmer, who is now demonstrating his utter disregard for the rules by evading his indef block through these various avenues. Could some action please be taken? - pm_shef 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Further proof is evident here as we see one of them removing the "suspected sockpuppet" tag from the other one's page. - pm_shef 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Journalist (talk · contribs)

I removed a spam link at University of Toronto and this user bit off my head, and sniped at me for doing so. Ardenn 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then he made a personal attack. Ardenn 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the "personal attack", but nothing preceding it. One part: I really dont want to fight (as amusing as I find your childish demeanor), so the most I can say is "have a good night". I wonder why a "childish demeanor" would tend to make one want to fight; here, as in his/her lack of apostrophes, I sense confusion or perhaps simple sleepiness. You're being wished a good night, so "AGF" and have a good night. -- Hoary 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You did the right thing in reverting the link as it is spam. I'd just de-escalate with Orane, who is a long time editor and an administrator here; I'm certain he wishes you no ill will -- Samir धर्म 07:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What does being an admin have to do with it? Do they have different standards when communicating with editors? 208.42.140.43 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They should be held to a higher standard of civility, but they also get slightly more credibility, as they have been vetted rather publically, and humiliatingly in some cases. The key was "long time," in the above: i.e. over a prolonged period of time, this editor has not been a source of trouble nor administrative controversy. That said, everyone gets cranky and grumpy at some point or another, and calling for others to review behavior is not wrong. Geogre 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stormie (talk · contribs)

I recently made a few edits to external links of articles, and an administrator kept reverting the edits, even though they were relevent per [Wikipedia:External_Links]. Could you please talk to them about making the right judgement whether my links should be on there? Thanks. Zealotgi 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm gonna have to agree with Stormie on this. You appear to be linking to a single website on multiple articles. Reviews don't make good external links. Especially when they don't come from reliable newspapers or known film/music critics. This is just a site where random people can write reviews (be it collaboratively). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, but there were a few, such as a biography on Hulk Hogan, that would have made good external links. Is it okay if I post it on the talk page and see what the community thinks about it first before posting it? Zealotgi 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

To whom it may concern,

I would like to bring to your attention what I consider heavy handedness on the part of an administrator. Please reference the discussion in relationship to myself and SCEhardT The dispute relates to my uploading an image, a mistake I admit but as I explained to the administrator a light-hearted yet admittedly misguided attempt to add some levity to a topic others were becoming too serious and combative about. In response I received an aggressive message on my talk page threatening me with blocking and the direction not to remove said message. I went ahead and did so as I believed a more civil response was approriate and made this clear to said admin. But again I received an even more aggressive uncivil message. It is unacceptable for Administrators to act in this way. Their intentions may be good but their arrogant attitude is ridiculous. I do not want to be blocked merely on the whim of an administrator who decided to take an overly aggressive response to my actions. Thank-you for your time.

AntonioBu 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

From user's userpage: Come join me in my mission to de-Americanise wikipedia or should I say wikipaedia. Help end the American cultural hegemony that now affects every aspect of life. AntonioBu 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC). Although it is wrong to assume bad faith, you don't exactly help your case with your stated purpose and actions, which are obviously aggressive. Oh, and I'm assuming this is about you uploading Image:DogDefecating.jpg? --mboverload@ 06:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding you were blocked specifically for removing a warning from your talk page from an administrator. I personally take a very dim view of that and I see no reason to lift the block at this time (you asked, indirectly, on the unblock mailing list) as I see no change in behaviour to warrant it. The repeated incivility was not addressed by this block, perhaps it should have been as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to de-Americanise Wikipedia, do it the correct way and go join the Countering Systematic Bias WikiProject. P.S. Calling it Wikipaedia would Britify it. Not really a neutral alternative. Besides, the name Wikipedia isn't POV at all. Dutchmen, German people and multiple other nationalities write it this way. You can't get any more neutral. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested

On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin [36], and substantially rewrote the article [37]. This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be Deir Yassin massacre. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Based on this, I reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.

As I have been involved, I request that this move is reviewed by independent admins, and undone if they come to a different conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page has been moved back in the meanwhile by involved editors, however, I will move the page back if there is no objection of uninvolved admin's of the decision I described above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what you did on the Israel apartheid page(s): you moved pages using admin tools, even though you were directly involved in the dispute. Also, your accusations of vote-stacking could amount to no more than like-minded people arriving because they agreed with what was being done. Admins are not allowed to use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute they're involved in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The incident SlimVirgin points at has been discussed here, seeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#Admin_protecting.2C_then_editing_article. The votestaking was confirmed by an uninvolved admin, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. For the rest, I have posted my action here for review by uninvolved admins as it could be disputed, and if an univolved admin concludes that the move is invalid, I will move it back without hestitation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this, and I have concluded that the move was invalid, because you're involved in the dispute but used an admin tool to make the move. You acknowledged that you were involved in the dispute when you asked another admin to ban Guy Montag from the page. Therefore, please undo the move, and leave it for someone who has no connection with the article to decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider you uninvolved due to our disagreements at various other Israel-Palestine related articles, and the ongoing ArbCom case here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you're well out of order. You don't make me involved just because you choose to say so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have moved it yourself, however it should be moved back. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to the original name Deir Yassin massacre or moved back from my move to the Battle of Deir Yassin? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to Deir Yassin massacre. But you shouldn't do it and you shouldn't have done it. - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will not do it myself, but leave it to another admin to do it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back from your move. Please undo whatever it was you did. You posted for input, and you've been given input. Kindly don't ignore it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to undo at the moment, as the page has been reverted back to Battle of Deir Yassin. However, the move revert war that has ensued may require further consideration, maybe even by the ArbCom. Pecher ^Talk 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this dispute and I don't remember ever editing pages on the Middle-East - but I do have some experience carrying out moves requested on WP:RM. I think that Kim van der Linde should not have closed the debate herself, having taken part in it. In spite of that, having spent some time looking into this, I agree with her analysis. The vote solicitation by Guy Montag clearly tainted the vote. His original move was objected to almost immediately. The user is on probation for biased editing on articles of this kind. This all seems to speak fairly clearly to moving the article to the name it had at its creation and which it still had last month. I've seen no rebuttal to this - can anyone offer one? Sarah? Haukur 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, I have no opinion about the title, and don't know anything about the arguments. My only concern is that we're calling an editor's attempt to get help from other editors "vote-stacking," when editors are in fact encouraged to involve other people in disputes and polls. Had he posted to 50 talk pages, I can see the grounds for concern, but five seems legitimate enough to me, and the fact that he was doing it openly on talk pages is another factor in his favor. There's probably a guideline about this somewhere, so maybe I should look around. I'm also concerned about Kim's comment that "Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces ..." How could she know what these editors' preferences were regarding what to call the Deir Yassin battle/massacre, if they hadn't already commented on it; and if they had already commented, then why is she concerned about their involvement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Very often you can make a good guess what opinion people will have on a given dispute and selectively contact those you think will agree with you. I know, I used to do this sort of thing back in my move-warring days... In this case Guy was, it seems, 100% successful in contacting the right people. The best way to bring attention to a vote is through noticeboards which anyone can watch. Haukur 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can think of several others who might have supported who he appears not to have contacted, so there doesn't seem to have been any kind of a concerted effort. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis and Haukur, I recognize that I should not have moved the article myself, but should have brought it to the attention of this noticeboard to start with. My judgement error on that part. My appologies for that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you did exactly the same thing on various pages related to Israeli apartheid (four times, I believe), and seeing the amount of trouble it has caused, it's hard to see how you could make the same mistake again and not realize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page should be moved back, and the move poll be taken there. Anyone else want to do it? - FrancisTyers · 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.

On another note, Kimv really seems to have an issue with using his administrative powers to gain an advantage in a dipute that he is a primary party to, while it is a step forward that he just admitted that he shouldn't have done it, I really must question his veracity considering the fact that in another post above he basically said that he didn't act inappropriately because people weren't "assuming good faith" whatever that means.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I think this is the type of situation that Wikipedia:Naming conflict (originally developed by Ed Poor and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."

Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically excluded from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.

The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Wikipedia entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible original research ("defining new terms"). Unfortunately it appears that the POV-pushers have taken over on this article; I think the page's move permissions will need to be locked and the case referred for arbitration. -- ChrisO 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of title that shouldn't be decided by a Google search, in my view, because of the number of highly POV sites that get included. What I do with contentious titles is try to find out what mainstream academics call it. Maybe that could be done here: try to find out what academic historians refer to it as? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help, I just did a Google Books search for the two terms. 56 books use "Deir Yassin massacre" and only one uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" (citing "a motion [which] was put before the Jerusalem city council to honor the five Zionist patriots who "had fallen during the battle of Deir Yassin"." - the motion failed after a public outcry.) 142 books use the terms "Deir Yassin" and "massacre" in close proximity. Google Scholar returns 51 articles using "Deir Yassin massacre" and none at all using "Battle of Deir Yassin". All of the encyclopedia entries that I've found relating to Deir Yassin refer to the "massacre" at "Deir Yassin" (cites: Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable, A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present, A Dictionary of Political Biography, The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia). None refer to it as a "battle".

So it seems that the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" is not only little used but is associated with a specific, highly controversial POV - rather akin to calling the Srebrenica massacre the "Battle of Srebrenica", as some denialists are wont to do in that case. This seems a very clear-cut case of a non-mainstream term being adopted for presumably POV reasons. -- ChrisO 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have made a watertight case from a NPOV so unless anyone can find and equally strong verifiable rebuttal, this should be accepted, and the contention should cease. Naturally what people think it should be called is pure OR and irrelevant. We are looking for the commonly accepted term, the principle of least surprise. Tyrenius 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 for acting like WP:TROLLs. I had lodged a previous report on ANI[43] that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on Talk:Sikhism, Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of user:Sukh. These users have spoken offensively to user:Sukh, User:Rajatjghai, user:Gsingh and myself.

Despite repeated and continuous warnings, both ARYAN818 and Elven6 have repeatedly engaged in revert wars, removing comments from their own talkpages, coming close to WP:3RR violations, repeatedly violated WP:NPA (includings religious, personal, political and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, and have been acting like WP:VANDALs and WP:TROLLs.

user:ARYAN818

Relevant Diffs (most recent):[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61]

Relevant Diffs (continuous):[62], [63],[64],[65], [66],[67]

user:Elven6

Relevant Diffs (most recent): [68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78]

Previous Report (continuous):[79], [80], [81],[82]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduization of Sikhism - Elven6 created an article that constituted WP:COPYVIO.

Thank you - I request administrators to take decisive action, as this has been going on for over one month, with a previous ANI report and numerous warnings. This Fire Burns Always 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to block both of them for 48hrs. Frankly some of the material discussed isn't for me to understand - well I couldn't see anything obvious from the article edits, but some of the talk page edits seem rather bizarre to say the least and some of the knockabout tone and inappropriate language is very disconcerting. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically Aryan argues from a hard Hindu POV, and Elven is oppposite that. The diffs provided illustrate a combination of revert warring, personal attacks, abusive messaging, vandalism and constant disruption of Wikipedia work. This Fire Burns Always 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This time I ask for really decisive and follow-up action, because several good editors have taken a lot of hell for over a month over several articles. A thousand warnings have not affected these gentlemen, who haven't even acted in a civil manner aside from the disputes. This Fire Burns Always 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen both these users (ARYAN818, Elven6), I endorse these blocks. Both of these users spent most of their time in disrupting the articles and attacking other editors, without adding anything fruitful to the articles in question. ARYAN818 has already been blocked several times for his user name, though he claims 818 is just his area code and has no neo-nazi connotations (though his frequent edit-wars in Aryan provide an interesting insight). I suggest other admins keep an eye on the pages referred to above as frequent edit warring continues to foment there. --Ragib 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 should be permanently blocked for his user name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:YaR GnitS's sockpuppetry, vandalism, and disruption

This situation is getting out of hand and I think more eyeballs are needed. An indefinitely blocked user, YaR GnitS, is apparently intent on pushing the following POV, non-notable, original research material: Gay ICP. When he added it to Insane Clown Posse (the subject matter of his material), the consensus of the other editors was to not include this material, so he created it as a separate article[83]. When I discovered it, I tagged it for deletion[84], and so far the votes have been nearly unanimous for the vote has been decided in favor of deletion.[85] note: check history when looking at the votes, he frequently vandalizes and rewrites editors' votes to reverse them, and you might be looking at a vandalized version.

Then he began to make personal attacks [86] against myself and other users who voted to delete, and to vandalize the afd page to alter people's votes [87]., see afd edit history This earned him an indefinite block[88].

He has now created at least two sockpuppets: YaR GnitS 64 and YaR GnitS 82, and possibly a third: Riddlebox Wraitz. He appears to edit from IP 64.12.116.204 [89], which is AOL so it can't be indefinitely blocked (at least, not until BPP gets implemented!). With one of them he has created a duplicate of his original article which has been speedy deleted [90]; according to RHaworth, who was kind enough to redirect and protect the article, it has been created and speedied no less than three times tonight.

As far as I can tell, there is no question about whether this user is disruptive or deservant of a block. He has displayed nothing but vandalism and disdain for consensus and NPOV since he arrived. He was asked and warned to edit more constructively[91]. The problem now is maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia until he gets bored and goes away. I would like to request assistance in finding his sockpuppets and stopping his vandalism, POV pushing, and personal attacks.

Note: see also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YaR GnitS, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YaR GnitS.

Thanks, Kasreyn 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Er...not that I'm an admin, but Riddlebox Wraitz (talk · contribs) was probably just some name this guy made up. There are no contributions page for the user, and only the User Page and User Talk Page exist. The edit was even made by YaR GnitS. Ryulong 07:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I wasn't the one who tagged that as a sockpuppet; I'll remove it. Kasreyn 07:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't even a User Creation Log. I would, however, suggest making this a doppleganger account. Ryulong 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because it isn't a user; [[User:insert name here]] pages can be created without having to have a user to correspond to them. It's probably best to delete, move, or merge these pages somewhere. --ais523 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Block request - Ad vitam aeternam

User:Ad vitam aeternam has been vandalizing 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis with POV. When I called him on it, he vandalized my userpage. --Pifactorial 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Make that, vandalized my userpage repeatedly. --Pifactorial 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. If he does that again, it will be a lot longer.--MONGO 09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Satris and possible sockpuppets

User:Satris was blocked for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Now new users Julliardgal (talk · contribs), Lotsofmusic (talk · contribs), Pianochic (talk · contribs) and Lotsalove (talk · contribs) have been making the same edits to Ronen Segev, Ten O'Clock Classics, Veda Kaplinsky and Laser hair removal that Satris made. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please take this to WP:RFCU. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• has already been checked, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Juilliardgal. Thatcher131 13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Jonny the Vandal

I believe User: JohnJogger and User: Jane Feathers may be aliases of Johnny the Vandal. The two have severely vandalized Chelsy Davy with edits claiming she is a transexual pornstar. Vickser 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Norman Invasion reverted to the (clearly false) vandalized page and put up a semi-protected noticed when no such protection existed. Vickser 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked all of them. --pgk^(talk) 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lior blocked

I've indefinitely blocked Lior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making this edit, which reads in part "It is a matter of fact that your father raped your elder sister and then buried her alive in a dumpster". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That link appears to be broken (perhaps from the page move). It is right here. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Andrew Homer

I blocked Andrew Homer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for a week for blatant attacks; this is not his first block and he seems completely unrepentant. Above all, he seems intent on personalising a content dispute, and that is never going to be fixed unless he changes his approach radically. Hopefully a longer block will convince him we're serious. If anyone feels this is excessively harsh they are welcome to reduce it; I would hope not below 48 hours, but whatever. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Boquank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Would someone kindly block this (user page specific) vandalism only account? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, appears to have been taken care of already. (→Netscott) 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

146.145.53.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Blanking one's warnings among other things. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

83.70.199.1

IP 83.70.199.1 : Has been reverted several times. See 1) [92] 2) [93] Hello32020 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss

I have been the subject of an accusation of violation of WP:ENC by User:Hipocrite on his talk page. There is much background on this, but what I'm coming here for is his refusal to discuss the matter. I tried to respond to the accusation here, but he removed my response without removing this accusation. Isn't making an accusation like that without hearing out the editor in question slanderous and not in accordance with WP:AGF? I thought so, so I said so here, asking to discuss it as equals. He removed it again and again, each time leaving his accusation there. He even "banned" me from posting in his talk page, leaving me an uncivil comment in the process. I read the guidelines for talk pages, didn't see anyhting about banning people from them. And now he's made an "archive for arses" and dumped my comments in there. I think I've put up with this slander, personal attacks and general hostility long enough. Comments would be greatly appreciated; please tell me if I'm in the wrong here. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a posting from an editor that hadn't edited in six months, linking me to encyclopedia dramatica's new mainpage article that is supposed to be about me. I removed it and changed the comments as I do not need , yes trolling like that on my talk page. You later come in and restore an edited version of the comments that I had altered [94]. In this, you reminded me of the obvious and added the editor summary of "rv deliberate mischaracterization of talk page comment by MONGO by changing the heading". Hipocrite removed it for me[95], you reverted [96] he reverted [97] and then you restored it again [98] and again he reverted [99], yet agin, you restored it....[100], so hipocrite then tried to minimize damage with [101]...but that wasn't good enough and you once again, reverted the section heading [102]. Tony Sidaway finally reverted the entire passage to the version I wanted [103]. Basically, I removed the links or mention to that website since at this time, they are enaging in personal attacks against me on their mainpage. Your attempts to point out this fact, even after I had removed them constitutes a personal attack. I have never met you before and this isn't some kind of playground. Guess what happens next to trolls? PsychoMaster indeed.--MONGO 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Once YOU got rid of it, I didn't revert. how was I supposed to know what you wanted? All you had done before was to turn the heading into a personal attack.. The discussion itself was left untouched by you when I reverted the personal attack. Your complaints are baseless and unrelated to my problem with Hipocrite's general superiority attitude. THat issue was (poorly) dealt with and is now dead. ANy other comments? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 22:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You restored a version that I had altered and mischaracterized it with the edit summary I stated baove...yes it was trolling. Don't play games here.--MONGO 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe anyone here will take your case. "petty bureaucrats always support one another" - quote from: The Book of Balance and Harmony (13th Century Taoist writing) --Acatsfinetoo 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Troll warning...three edits...one being to welcome himself to Wikipedia...[104]--MONGO 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, you're in the wrong. Also quite wrong when you claim, on my talkpage, that I've "alleged" you committed policy violations. No, I haven't. If you post on MONGO's page again it won't be for violating paragraph 10 B of policy 6 R, Amendment 173 that I'll block you, it'll be for inconsiderate obnoxiousness and not using common sense. I get to do that. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC). P. S. And leave Hipocrite alone, too. Don't post on his page. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society

The AfD discussion for Mega Society has been muddied by numerous anonymous IP edits and no less than 8 single purpose accounts listed here. I don't know what anyone can do about it, but some sort of confirmation that someone's paying attention to it would give my weary soul some rest. -- NORTH ^talk 21:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on the page. The closing admin will likely ignore all dodgy votes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, can I get an opinion on what should be done with this on the talk page. The comment by Howlinwolf was originally posted in the main discussion, struckthrough by an admin, and was then deleted by his supposed sockpuppet-master and copy and pasted as his own.

I put the original version on the talk page, and am now in a rousing debate with User:MichaelCPrice over whether this is appropriate or not. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- NORTH ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of IP 82.110.149.183

Hello All,

Firstly I'll introduce myself as Tony Sargeant, Network Manager of St Bernard's Convent School, Slough (see article).

I see that the school IP (82.110.149.183) has been blocked from editing until 12th September 2006. Good, please leave blocked. I agree with your policies being applied to protect the articles.

Is there a way I can stop the St Bernard's School article from being changed? Or be under my control? There are some minor errors in it.

Regards

 --TonySargeant 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You can edit the article, like anyone else; as for "control", please see WP:OWN. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are blocked at your work access from changing the article, you can pass along the changes necessary to another user. However, we don't really lock down any articles, and therefore it is always possible for them to be changed, appropriately or inappropriately. We're pretty vigilant, however. We miss some vandals, and we miss some mistakes, but generally we spot it when a school article gets "booger" edits and the like. Geogre 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scared by edit summaries at an article

I've been watching 4chan, trying to keep it free of "/b/tardism" (vandalism by users of the Random board of the site) and these edit summaries are scaring me a little:

• /b/tards added real /b/tard contents. Dont change Ryulong or Anonymous will get you
• /b/tards added real /b/tard contents. Dont change Ryulong or Anonymous will get you

These were added by JimKandol (talk · contribs) and I'm a little scared, especially because I reverted an edit that had already been reverted. My user page is sprotected (anonymous IP editors can't get me), but this user may be able to edit it, since his account is older. Ryulong 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Gave the user a final warning abakharev 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Abakharev. If he ignores the warning or if my talk page gets vandalized by IP editors, I'll be posting here, again. Ryulong 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Being referred to by name again

"Ryulong! you are not Moot, stop changing other peoples edits." Does this count as a personal attack, too? Ryulong 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of these are vandalism, but please don't look for the NPA policy. It's not needed, in the first place, and we all take chances when we edit Wikipedia. The gibbering on the talk page and the random edit warring is sufficient for intervention without trying to assess whether or not a person has been insulted. Geogre 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Range blocking of 65.138.68.0/22

There has been repeated abuse of various sorts from the IP range 65.138.68.0 - 65.138.71.255. This culminated with what might be interpreted as death threats towards another user. (see [105] and [106]) This address range maps to a pair of dialup concentrators in Louisville, Kentucky, which I have now range-blocked for 24 hours. -- The Anome 22:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

Condoleezza Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is bursting at the seams with insanity once again. Although it's been fprotected, the talk page is getting really nasty, with an overabundance of racist allegations, impersonations, and invasions of privacy. Several users are acting way out of line. Could an administrator please look into the article? Thank you. Isopropyl 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:FelsenVonEngland is banned user User:BrittonLaRoche?

Editing same subjects (e.g. Celtic toe, and contributing artwork credited to Britton LaRoche, eg. This will be the third User:BrittonLaRoche sock, reported to WP:SSP Pete.Hurd 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Known Copyvio

Sean Fury (talk · contribs) recently created 4chan List of Memes. This article is a direct copy-paste from WikiWorld's 4chan article. I do not know if he will remove the {{db-copyvio}} tag, or if he will recreate the article, but if he does, then there will be a link to it here. Ryulong 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful accusations

DyslexicEditor (talk · contribs) is making up lies about me and posting them to other users talk pages. Posting on Ed Poor's talk page "MONGO on wikipedia has impersonated you on Encyclopædia Dramatica as one of the sock puppets he used to vandalize their article about him, the other is MONGO1. I would link to proof to ED's "MONGO" article but MONGO has ordered me not to link to it (he has also removed the link to it from the article so you will have to see the article's history for the link). I am asking for a statement that it was not you." I have not used another wikipedians username anywhere else, and this is a lie deliberately designed to further discredit me. I stated unambiguously that I have never edited encyclopedia dramatica nor anywhere else that posts in a wiki-style format. I stated that I know that someone has deliberately used my username on ED and at unencyclopedia. DyslexicEditor has also posted links to ED to blocked editors encouraging them to make comments about us there [107] and other places in a deliberate attempt to harass me and/or promote that website via wikipedia.[108], [109], [110], [111], [112]. The main problem I have is the personal defamation campaign DyslexicEditor is engaging in.--MONGO 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, one more example of him accusing me of signing up as Ed Poor at that other website...[113]--MONGO 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block commensurate with the scale of the attacks. One week? --Tony Sidaway 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best as I can see no reason that we should support the defamation of any Wikipedian here by linking others to off wiki sites and pages that serve solely to harass.--MONGO 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DyslexicEditor also created an attack redirect page, making Unfunny (now speedy deleted for being an attack) which redirected to encyclopedia dramatica. --mboverload@ 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrewwinkler (talk · contribs)...

...appears to be a trolling-only account. I would like to see him indefblocked, but would rather not take the action myself. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)