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

User:Mikenacy

Personal attack only account. See also [1] // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Propose community ban. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) was last straw for me. To the best of my knowledge (anecdotal), HH is already banned on he:wiki. - crz crztalk 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Got a bit narky with User:Yanksox on Yanksox's talk page about an article he deleted. Then it seems that Haham tried to get the guideline everyone referred to in the AfD deleted? Excellent. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I think it'd be better to send this to be dealt by ArbCom instead. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • W/ such an extensive block log, i also agree. -- Szvest 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
  • I can't speak about his/her past history, but I don't see a violation of rules or guidelines recently. I would not endorse a ban. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • With that many block log entries... I think we can all agree he violated the rules numerous times. I really question whether or not recentness really matters... very few repeated rules violaters ever clean up their act and stop being a pain in the ass. Opinionated users remain opinionated, and this guy repeatedly goes around his blocks to continue his ranting. I think I'm gonna have to support an RFAr if one is put forth.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering I was the closing admin on that guideline MFD, I also support sending Haham hanuka to ArbCom. --Coredesat 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Community patience has been worn out, but I do endorse taking this to Arbcom. Yanksox 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that haham hanuka has been indefinitely blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia. The protected user page reads: "haham hanuka is an internet troll... El_C 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support a possible Arb, though I'd have to see the evidence to really see if it was possible. It's annoying how he comes along every few weeks to attempt to whitewash the Adolf Hitler article, then disappears with nary a word. However, the block log is poor evidence for a community ban, as he hasn't been blocked in four months. --Golbez 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I support an Arbcom. He recently twice deleted part of the Yigal Amir article (second time even using the edit summary rv trolling! [2]) even though there was a consensus to keep that part. I did not have time, energy and interest in reporting him so no further action were taken. I want to enjoy myself more while I am here. He also keeps watering down articles on Hitler and the Holocaust. In general he pays no respect to community decisions and consensus. gidonb 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, the talk page of that article contains a lot of information about the user. gidonb 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So, now that it seems that the consensus is to go to arbitration, who's going to officially file the request? Scobell302 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user may request arbitration; you don't have to be an involved party. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI.. again

How does everyone feel about a community ban on SPUI? After two blocks for adding the SQUIDWARD edit summaries he stopped. But as soon as he returned, he was blocked for 31 hours for a 3RR violation. It's becoming very obvious that he is coming to Wikipedia to disrupt with every edit he makes and not to contribute positively. semper fi — Moe 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All prior warnings, notices, and recommendations that he stop become covered by an admin. Yes, you can revert so that it is visible, but when its been covered several times, recovering becomes an incredible hassle. Looking at his block log and his recent edits, it seems as if he does not want to constructively contribute to Wikipedia after "leaving." How many "second chances" must we give this destructive user? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. He's had too many chances. --Kbdank71 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see SPUI community-banned. He's made a lot of good encyclopedic edits, and I think he's a good user. OK, so he had a moment of madness, but he's a decent editor, IMHO. --SunStar Net 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

God let's end this already. Yes, he was a very prolific contributer, but I don't think he's here to be constructive anymore. Also, all my recent real-life experiences tell me that I would rather have someone who contributes less but doesn't cause any trouble, than someone like this. Grandmasterka 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

His 3RR block is kind of odd. He reverted the featured article of the day 4 times by removing what he considered was unsourced original research, and then reported himself on the en-wiki mailing list. Thatcher131 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing his recent 3RR block as typical of any past disruption he may have been involved with is not fair, IMO. Even the best editors go into 3RR from time to time, and this specific instance involved enforcing the Wikipedia original research policy on the article that sat on the front page all day. Whether he's exhausted the community's patience, I have no real input on, although I think he does valuable work here. But let's not try to frame this specific instance from yesterday as part of anything greater than what it was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)...or as Thatcher said above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose community banning. SPUI deserves an RFC to start with anyway, not some AN/I discussion. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We tried that. Others came and defended him, ignoring the evidence. WP:RFC/SPUI --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The current popular principle behind a community block is that if no admin will unlbock then the block was probably OK. That isn's going to hapen with SPUI.Geni 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time. Kusma (討論) 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because he's hardly contributing doesn't mean he hasn't been a problem. Ever since the beginning of October he has been a problem. Lets look at the facts shall we:

• October 12-13 he edits with SQUIDWARD summaries: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

He recieves a block: 03:41, 14 October 2006 Lar (Talk contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 minutes (Please stop SQUIDWARDing...)

• He returns October 23/24 to edit with the SQUIDWARD summaries again: [8] [9]

Blocked again: 05:19, 24 October 2006 Konstable (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (again, please stop SQUIDWARDing)

• He returns on November 3-5 to edit V for Vendetta (film) and it's talk: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Blocked again: 03:35, 5 November 2006 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Violation of 3RR)

Literally the only edit he hasn't been blocked for in the last month is blanking his talk page with an Image of a duck. semper fi — Moe 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? Apparently as long as you have some good contributions, you get to act however you want, and your admirers, defenders, whatever, will at best hand out a series of 24 hour (or less) blocks, and at worst, ignore the behavior completely. Can anyone explain why this has been allowed to continue? --Kbdank71 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he's made 74,000 contributions. Of which 40,000 are probably controversial page moves which have been corrected by new

guidelines now.. :\ semper fi — Moe 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and we have no real method of knowing which contributions are constructive. The page moves did nothing but create mass controversy and led many editors to quit in disgust. It's even worse when one or two admins reverted his blocks because he was such a good editor. I'll repeat what Lar spoke of during some controversy that SPUI created: "No one editor is indispensable to the project." If SPUI becomes a nuisance, then he should not be able to contribute in that manner; yes, he made good edits, but so have we, and the project continues forward. Whether or not we have SPUI is irrelevant; there will always be other editors to take his place, as clearly demonstrated today. After his "leave", we still have editors on road topics throughout all 50 states that do fine without SPUI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because we're here to contribute? On a more serious note, I don't see what exactly is bannable here. Prior to the V 3RR thing, he got blocked for using weird edit summaries on edits that either attempted to remove OR marginally-encyclopedic material or were RfA votes. His second block was for squidward edit summaries on two talk pages. How is this significantly more grounds for banning than using no summary at all? Are people that bothered to see "squidward" on the RC list twice in two days (in latter case)? I agree with Jeff on the description of the V incident. --user:Qviri 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to review all of his prior blocks to get a good idea of how much he's gotten away with... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SQUIDWARD! is the name fast-pace vandal. The vandal generally gave the edit summary SQUIDWARD! as he was vandalizing. SPUI copyign that was inappropriate, whether he was vandalizing or not. semper fi — Moe 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's because the case is not made at present. If the guy is reporting himself for 3RR, then it may be WP:POINT, but it's hardly serial disruption. Basically, we can't see how he's going to behave after the last block. He has built up a lot of animosity from some people, and they're very ready to get the gallows ready, but I don't see him currently earning the noose. I think it has to be an unrepentant pattern, and the only unrepenting problem was the edit summaries, and now he's repented. Geogre 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR may not be serial disruption. What would you call the remainder of his block log? And so what if he's repented? Maybe it's just me, but to see problem, repent, problem, repent, problem, repent, would seem to indicate we have a problem with more than just SPUI. Look, I make no assumptions that this will go anywhere; as I said, there are too many people willing to overlook too much. --Kbdank71 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a serial disruption when SPUI was disrupting page after page with his own naming conventions. It's been done in the past, which should not be overlooked. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely: it should not be overlooked, and I wouldn't advocate turning the other way. The question isn't, I hope, all or nothing. I just didn't see anything going on since that nasty episode. If it does, I'll be on board with a community ban, but I think community bans should be when the other person isn't acting out of an interpretation of what's best for Wikipedia. When the other person is misinterpreting or being petulant about their views of policy and practice, ArbCom's deliberative process should be best. When a person is just exhausting everyone by insisting after a clearly settled issue or pride or a desire to play gotcha with someone or a desire to settle political scores (real life ones, like the nationalists and monomaniacs), then it's community patience. That's my view, anyway. Geogre 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on the situation. Give him a block that will actually prevent him from disrupting (a few days or so). See how he acts then. If he socks during, or continues acting up after, then I think that should remove some doubt. --InShaneee 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah why not? A community ban for a few days? Or a week? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A short block with the intention if we can bait a user into sockpuppeting is not something I could ever support. However, a permanent community ban for SPUI, who has committed many, many times more infractions and disruptions than plenty of other permabanned users, has ignored countless requests, decisions and judgements, and is bizarrely and inexplicably supported by some admins (is he nice to them on IRC?), and has driven good editors away from Wikipedia, is something I would get behind. This needs to go to ArbCom, and this needs to be resolved. Proto::type 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose any community ban through ANI. This better be taken through an RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, it's been taken through RfC before... He's exhausted all of our patience, and its senseless to keep taking it to ANI, RfC, etc. if the outcome is going to be the same: status quo. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a short block would solve either. While I've given SPUI blocks in the past to try to get him to stop being disruptive, maybe those just don't work with him. On the other hand I DO think he adds value and would hate to see him permanently banned. Is there nothing else? No other way to reach him and get at whatever the root issue is? I guess I am more willing than some to keep trying with SPUI. But in the end Wikipedia is not... a lot of things, including a selfhelp org for those that don't want to change, or a babysitting service, or a group therapy session, or a twelve step program, among others. If there is no change possible then, so be it. One more chance maybe but, really, no more. (as an aside, I totally reject the notion Badlydrawnjeff advances above, that "even the best editors go into 3RR sometimes" I've never, ever, ever done that...) ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I longer short block than before would accomplish something in the fact that it would actually prevent him from doing something, whereas the previous blocks of a few minutes/hours it has been suggested he may not have even noticed (I did not mean to 'draw out' sockpuppets as suggested above; I merely meant that a preventative block must actually prevent something to be effective). --InShaneee 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. He needs to be banned. Now. ANYONE who has the mentality that they can do whatever the hell want, like SPUI clearly does, should be blocked. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so when the huge edit war over road names he was involved with wound up with a decision he opposed being forced through in unusual circumstances despite a lack of true consensus (again, there were reasons this had to be done and as one of the people who backed it I am here criticizing myself) the 'massively disruptive' reaction he had was to continue making valid contributions, but using the edit summary "SQUIDWARD". For this heinous crime he was blocked... twice. Then, when asked to stop using such summaries... he did! Dastardly. Instead, he went and explained that he was making changes to a new page to remove original research... some sort of theory about how the 'V' in 'V for Vendetta' was probably a reference to the roman numeral for five. That looks like original research to me. Removing it with explanatory edit summaries was therefor... proper. Edit warring when it was re-inserted was not, but seems hardly grounds for a community ban. It seems to me that SPUI is giving his detractors thin pretexts to demonstrate their bias and animosity towards him... and they are happily obliging. SPUI is not being a model Wikipedian, but as reactions to brow-beating and tossing consensus out the window go this isn't exactly the end of the world. --CBD 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree CBD. We shouldn't be simply community ban someone for a 3RR or for a few mild edit summaries, but when is enough, enough? His edits aren't as much as the problem as the attitude and straight-fowardness of his edits. It's not that his edits are wrong, but he pushes the issue until his opposition either gives up or a third party gets involved or blocks him. Really how many things has he done that has gotten himself blocked over his time on Wikipedia. Just to name a few:

• Moving Highway articles a lot
• Move warring
• 3RR violations
• Incivilty
• POINT violations
• Blatant vandalism
• Disruption
• personal attacks
• Copyright violations
• Testing Wikipedia's browser blocking code on User:SPUI/jajaja
• per ArbCom decisions for putting pro-pedophile userboxes on his userpage
• Probation violations
• SQUIDWARD! edit summaries

Again, he may not be wrong, but the way he edits is disruptive and non-helpful. It's not a question anymore of how useful or correct he was a year ago or a few months ago as some people agrue. We have community banned former administrators before. SPUI has made several useful contributions before, no question, but so have other banned editors. How far do we push each ourselves with SPUI? How far before we say 'enough'? semper fi — Moe 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You ask 'how far'. My standard is quite simple... 'has it reached the point where it seems clear this user will never be a positive contributor'? I look at 'squidward', a 3RR violation in pursuit of 'no original research', and ducks in a pram and see 'silly git'... not 'irrational monster beyond all hope of redemption'. Everything else you list up there is what, months old? And many of them seemed, to me, as much over-reactions and misrepresentations as the accusations of 'blatant vandalism' which accompanied his silly 'squidward' edit summaries (despite no vandalism actually being involved). To put it another way... SPUI made positive contributions, but put a silly 'squidward' edit summary on them. He was then falsely accused of vandalism and a community ban called for. His reaction? He issued no personal attacks, made no disruptive edits, and stopped using the silly edit summary. Where I come from that's called a phenomenal improvement in behaviour compared to the SPUI from months back you describe above. So where the indication that he is a bad bad man who will never do any good? --CBD 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I rephrase my question. It's been over one month since he has contributed without getting blocked. How long do we put up with his nonsense before he becomes a 'positive' contributor again? semper fi — Moe 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your framing assumes that blocks for 'squidward' edit summaries were valid. I don't believe they were. 'How long without being blocked' isn't much of a standard when blocks are placed for things which represent no real 'damage' or 'disruption' to Wikipedia at all. To my way of thinking, SPUI has made exactly ONE block-worthy edit in that time period... his fourth revert on the 'V' original research. --CBD 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the blocks for the squidward edit summaries may not have been valid is because he was never warned about it. After sternly warned, yes, he stopped. But does that excuse him from copying the well-known vandal edit-summary? If I suddenly started using those edit summaries and continued after a block (and yes SPUI did), would that not be disruption? semper fi — Moe 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The other concern is that he has chased many users away from Wikipedia (names can be provided on request) directly or indirectly because of his actions. And made the highways area an unpleasant place to work. Also, SPUI has not made any uncontroversial mainspace edits in over two months (uncontroversial excluding SQUIDWARD or the 3RR). Not that that necessarily mounts to anything however.... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And in the realm of the truly bizzare...its either a sockpuppet or a fanboy here. Though why be either, I haven't a clue. pschemp | talk 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Bushcarrot (talk · contribs). —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, then. Are we going to continue to argue or actually do something here? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we vote? Have a more formal discussion? There is no clear-cut answer here, unless we send this to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is here. It is really quite easy to not be disruptive. He has had more than 50 chances to do it over the course of a year and a half. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then who will hit the block button if it is to be done? Discussing it and doing nothing else doesn't help. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who will block him, because someone like CBD will come along and unblock him. Look at his block log; just a series of blocks and unblocks. I'm not going to be the one to start a wheel-war with people who look at his attitude and say, "Eh, it's not THAT bad. Why, 50% of his contributions are completely uncontroversial! What are you all complaining about?" Until someone like Jimbo puts his foot down, SPUI will continue to act like he does, half of you will continue waste your time to undo his shenanigans and argue for his permablock, and the other half will waste their time arguing why he should stay and unblocking any errant blocks. Don't you think all this wasted time could be spent better elsewhere? --Kbdank71 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is...if someone's going to inappropriately wheel war...then we can't block appropriately. --InShaneee 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is I'm not going to waste my time blocking SPUI just to see someone unblock him. You can wheel war over him until the cows come home if you think it'll do some good. --Kbdank71 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone wheel wars, it should be dealt with. In the meantime, that shouldn't prevent us from making legitimate blocks. It's like saying, "Why bother writing articles, they'll just be vandalized." --InShaneee 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So our options at this point are to a) block or b) send this to RFC or ArbCom. Meanwhile, nothing is getting done. As I was involved in the ArbCom stuff it would be conflict of interest to block so in reality I can't. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, and will say again, to make the message clear... ban ban ban ban ban ban ban. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we might as well take it back to ArbCom. It should not be "300 strikes and you're out", and he's been blocked enough times to make anyone realize that he isn't going to do much of anything that's actually constructive. I'm not 100% sure ArbCom would be able to solve the problem, because they've dealt with him before, and he doesn't seem to have any respect for their decisions. It could still be worth trying, since ArbCom could just decide to indefblock/ban him. An ArbCom block/ban would be less likely to result in a wheel war. --Coredesat 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this matter can be handled without involving ArbCom. The terms are simple: I think we are all agreed that his behavior needs to improve, that he needs to make a serious & sincere effort at playing by the rules; the disagreement appears to be whether he can be convinced to improve or that he is beyond all hope & we have no choice other than to ban him from Wikipedia. As constructive as he might be (I haven't followed his edits, but for the sake of argument let's say he is), if SPUI -- or any Wikipedian -- is being disruptive to the point that he has received multiple blocks yet no one cares enough to intervene & save him from a permanent ban, then the community has made its decision & clearly wants him gone. So is there anyone who is working with SPUI offline from Wikipedia with the aim of improving his behavior & avoid having him banned from this project & losing his constructive contributions? If there is, I hope that would be enough to convince the "Ban SPUI" faction to have some patience & give him one more -- even if it is only his last -- chance. If there is not, & no one is willing to volunteer to help SPUI from being banned, then it's hard not to conclude that the proper solution is a Community Ban. All it would take is for one person to volunteer to work with him to keep him; otherwise, silence is consent & it's clear, despite what some may say, everyone wants him gone. -- llywrch 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am more than willing to assist SPUI in becoming a constructive editor here again as long as he doesn't continue with his extreme forms of silliness. As long as he is willing to be a positive contributor, we can always use another hand on Wikipedia. But this my only offer to help the guy, if he continues being disruptive, I'm not going to be as helpful the next go-around. semper fi — Moe 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI can be banned by any administrator from any area he disrupts. If he does not comply with the ban he may be blocked. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Any administrator may do this. Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. We still have the option of banning rather than blocking. Banning being "you can't edit this article anymore because you've disrupted it." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that CBD's summary of the cause of the current situation is very apt. The 'highways' situation became extremely unpleasant -- SPUI was basically at one point being told that not only would he be sanctioned for not abiding by a non-consensus decision, but that he'd be sanctioned for pointing out that it was a non-consensus decision. (Admittedly he was pointing it out rather frequently, but when a bare majority is repeatedly mischaracterised as a "consensus", a certain feeling of frustration is somewhat understandable.) There's been lots of nonsense and silliness from SPUI before (I've been on the end of a small portion of it myself), but this seems to me to be different. This is sheer surmise and speculation, take it for what it's worth, but it appears to me more that he essentially quit the project over that issue, but due to on-going wikidiction and/or wishing to express residual resentment, isn't quite able to go "cold turkey", and so is making periodic forays back. I'm not especially hopeful this will end well, and in the circumstances, I doubt that "area bans" will be at all useful (since if I'm correct, it'll just force him to find other ways to vent, which he'll rise to the challenge of). I'd urge the community not to take any far-reaching steps just at the moment, but if he doesn't knock it on the head immediately, I'd be in favour of a "medium length" block (a week to a month or two, say) to stop him digging himself in yet deeper in the meantime. Alai 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would have thought mentorship would be a solution, in a way. --SunStar Net 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to ban SPUI

I have made a motion to ban SPUI for a year at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#SPUI Fred Bauder 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this. If I had to "learn" to behave myself then so should he have. He's had his 1,000 chances and now should cool his heels for a bit. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have opposed this there, for what it's worth. SPUI can't be banned for a year by that arbitration committee ruling until he has been blocked justifiably under its probation restrictions five times. I count four, at least one of which I feel was unjustifiable. I also feel there is not consensus for a community ban; there is, from what I see, considerable clamor for one, but also some opposition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, as long as SPUI watches it and contributes productively I have no problems with him around. Actions such as the Squidward edit summaries will result in an immediate block from me though. In short, as long as SPUI doesn't mess around, I welcome him here. If he wants to be disruptive, then we have to think about measures. Let's not jump the gun here -- Tawker 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've found that in most cases once SPUI is blocked once or twice about an issue he stops doing it. The sole exception was what he got an arbcom ruling about - edit warring about highway names (in other words, a genuine content difference, not the silly provocation of most of the other stuff).

We should also be cautious about baiting someone under probation and blocking him for things that if other editors did them would not be blockable offenses. I've on occasion noted a way of thought that goes, "SPUI is a troll, therefore ..." Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37

I would like help to sort out a problem which has arisen at CFD. (I am an admin myself, but cannot act as an admin in this instance, because I am actively involved).

My editing focuses on Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and on their constituencies. After some category restructuring (see Category talk:British MPs#Restructuring_again.2C_now_largely_done), I thought that some category renaming would be appropriate, and made a series of suggestions at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. I made the suggestions there rather than launch straight into a CFD, because my experience of CFD is that it can easily become conflictual and unwieldy if the range of options for consideration has not been discussed beforehand. My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that before CFD rather than after).

That proposal was made on 4 November 2006, and I drew its existence to the attention of some editors who I know to be active in the area. My intention was to let the discssion run for a week or two, to help maximise consusus, before proceeding to CFD. (At time of writing 4 replies, all supporting my proposals)

On November 5th, one of those categories was nominated for CFD (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 5#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies) by User:Smerus, who was evidently unaware of the discussion at category talk. This CFD was brought to my attention on 6th November (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Jumping_the_gun), and it nominated only one of the categories, with a rename different to those discussed in category talk. (Smerus proposed renaming Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament representing English constituencies; my proposal was a rename to Category:UK MPs for English constituencies).

At 10:04, I responded at the CFD by pointing out the earlier discusson, and asking the nominator to withdraw the proposal so that we coukd create a new CFD including both options. Smerus kindly agreed to this at 16:21 UTC, and I created the new CFD tonight (see WP:CFD#National sub-categories of Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament). I would like to stress that I have no complaint at all against Smerus, who has been civil and helpful and sought to resolve problems to seek a consensus, and who actions all show good faith.

However, in the meantime, at 11:13, User:Jc37 nominated the remaining categories, but proposed only the format offered by [[User:Smerus]. When I returned, I accepted Smerus's offer to withdraw, and created the new CFD at WP:CFD#National_sub-categories_of_Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament.

However, user Jc37 objects to the withdrawal, and at 00:42, 7 November 2006 says he/she wants only Smerus's proposal to be considered; only if it fails, should the earlier proposal be considered. (see Smerus's CFD and my new CFD, 00:32, 7 November 2006).

This seems to be to be silly at best, and destuctive at worst: the nominator has agreed to a new CFD to consider both options. That CFD has been created. The best-considered discussion is surely likely to be reached when all relevant options are on the table, from the outset.

Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.

However, it didn't end there :(

Having been notified of the earlier discussion at Category talk:British MPs, Jc37 then listed the three other categories for renaming, without listing the proposal originally discussed: see British female MPs, Current British MPs.

In subsequent comments at 00:46, 7 November 2006 and 00:42, 7 November 2006, Jc37 has refused requests to withdraw these nominations and called for another admin to be involved.

Jc37 has stated repeatedly that he/she opposes the use of abbreviations in the category names, and whatever its merits that is an entirely legitimate objection. However, the way in which these nominations have been made appears to have been designed to prevent or hinder consideration of all the options, and subsequent unwillingness to resove the situation reinforces that view.

I assumed good faith, but since Jc37 has insisted that it is preferable to run a CFD without including the earlier options, I can only conclude that the aim in the second batch of discussions was to bypass ongoing discussions about the names of these categories, by using the CFD process to trump attempts to explore the issue and seek consensus. JC37 refuses to continue discussion, and has suggested admin intervention (see comment at 00:42, 7 November 2006). I would have prefrred to continue discussion, but that has apparently been refused. In other circumstances I would Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second_step:_Disengage_for_a_while, but since a CFD process is underway, disengagement is a poor option.

Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.

I feel strongly that it would set a very bad precedent for these nominations to continue: if CFD can be used used as a mechanism to disrupt and bypass consensus-seeking discussions, then there ill be a clear disincentive to discuss category changes before moving to CFD. That will only make for more confrontational CFDs, poorer decision-making, and a much harder job for the admins who monitor and close CFDs.

While I await admin response, I will go ahead and make counter-proposals to these CFDs. However, even after making the counter-proposals, I would still prefer the CFDs to be closed. Some participants have already made their recommendations without

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a totally unacceptable request and I suggest it is made in bad faith simply because BrownHairedGirl is worried that she will lose the debate on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. There has recently been strong interest in removing gender categories for politicians on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. BrownHairGirl seems to feel that when the proper forum for discussing categories (guess why it is called "categories for discussion"?) is not getting the results she wants the proper procedures should be voided in favour of a forum where she feels more confident of getting her way. I suggest that she should be reprimanded for making false allegations of bad faith. Piccadilly 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly, that is utter nonsense, as would be abundantly clear to anyone who does some minimal reading. I have no objection to anyone nominating a category for deletion, and while I would query the usefulness of a CFD on the female MP categories when there was a previous unsuccesful proposal only three months ago. I have not objected in these CFDs to the nomination to delete the categories (I recommend against, but I have not objected to that aspect of the nomination).

BrownHairedGirl that is utter nonsense. You have objected to use use of cfd and are continuing to do so. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read my complaint above before launching into a personal atatck, or botgered to to read the discussion at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, or to read my contributions to the CFDs, you will see that I am not calling for an abandonment of the CFD, simply for a CFD which does not try to exclude options on which a consensus had been developed at category talk.

Drawing attention to your bad faith actions and attempts to intimidate other users, which have since got worse with the deletion of my comments on cfd, is not a personal attack, it is a public duty. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly, your allegation was based on the assunption that I did not want a CD to trakr place. That is false, as you can see from reading the CFDs. Your new allegation of intimidation is thefefore just more nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not try, and have not tried, to void one forum in favour of another: if you read what I wrote above, I said "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD, but rather to try to clarify the issues by considering them without a CFD deadline looming. (I have seen previous CFDs in this area closed with a referral back to category talk, so it seemed sensible to try that before CFD rather than after)."

When you have tried to stitch up cfd, saying "My aim was not to somehow stitch up the CFD" does not make you innocent. Just the same as when one has robbed a bank saying, "My aim was not to rob the bank" does not make one innocent. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I have not tried to stich it up! How on earth is a stitch up to ask that all options be presented from the outset, and that an editot should not attempt to bounce an existing discussion by taking part of it and rushing off with a different CFD which excludes the option to have achieved coinsensus so far? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All I want is a CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is identifiable support, rather one lodged. Do you oppose that? A discussion at category talk cannot make a decision, and it cannot replace CFD. However, it can help to clarify the issues, and to allow users to define which options are useful to bring to CFD.

The proposals you present are too complex. If one wanted to be cynical one might suggest that you are trying to make things so hard to follow that few people will have the time to choose any option other than nodding them through or ignoring the discussion. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

These categories are complex: there are a bundle of related categories involved. Why do you want editors to vite without being aware of all the issues? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your motive is, Piccadilly, but your comment here is is either gravely mistaken or thoroughly malicious. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been caught out misbehaving grievously. I came here solely to defend an innocent user with whom I have no connection who has been maligned by you. You need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility and stop acting like you own Wikipedia's coverage of British MPs. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion for some time and am AMAZED by the consistent patience, forbearance and industry of User:BrownHairedGirl. - Kittybrewster 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed at the unscrupulous methods she is prepared to use to impose her will. She has had the gall to delete my comments on cfd, which is about as clear-cut as bad faith can get. Piccadilly 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is unscrupulous about asking for a CFD which includes from the outset all the options which editors want to discuss, in partiular those which had achieved support in a live discussion at category talk before th nomination was made? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"All the options" is an interesting statement. It sounds like you feel that you won't be "heard". What was stopping you from joining in the CfD discussions, rather than rather petulently (I apologise, but I'm having a hard time seeing it any other way atm) disregarding the noms except to dismiss them as unwanted? The mere fact that after several hours "away from your computer", you still chose to not join in the discussion, and start your counter nomination (pointing out that the previous nom was on the 5th, my additional noms were on the 6th, and her counter noms was on the 7th). And I have to admit, I'm starting to find the continued use of "bad-faith nomination" a bit irksome, especially when I consider the circumstances of your attempt at a separate duplicate/subsequent/alternative nomination. Anyway, I'll continue my thoughts below. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what needs to be done in three sentences or less? --Kbdank71 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes!

• Requested action: please can an admin close Smerus's CFD, since the nomination has been withdrawn in favour of a later CFD.
• Requested action: please can an admin close the CFDs at British female MPs, Current British MPs as bad faith nominations, and ask all editors concerned to discuss the issues further at Category talk:British MPs and to return to CFD with a set of proposals which relects all the options for which there is support.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's that "bad-faith nomination" comment again. I even split the nomination at the request of another user. I feel I've been amenable, helpful and communicative. So I feel such an attack is unwarranted. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

General response

Well, wow. This is apparently what I get for being away from Wikipedia for a couple days?

I'm rather stunned at BrownHairedGirl's accusations, I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am nonetheless.

I think the easiest way to respond would be to show a "timeline", and go from there.

First, take a moment and read: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#CFD for MPs from English constituencies. (I'll be referring to it, but for space reasons, am deciding to not repaste it all here. If diffs are still requested, I suppose I can build a list.) I pasted her initial post from my talk page, and my response, to her talk page.

• Her post time: 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• My response: 10:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Her response: 10:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• My next response resulted in an edit conflict with Mai Oui!, whose response was at: 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ; while mine was at: 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• And then I responded to Mai Oui's comment at: 11:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice the immediacy of the discussion to that point. After that point, no responses whatsoever. I offered to list the rest of the nominations (since "someone else" had already listed a couple of categories that apparently she had made a plan for). I did so, and finished the nominations, though, as I mentioned, I didn't agree with the MP abbreviation, and noted the already existing nominations used "representing" rather than for or from, and so I nominated the rest based on the previsous nom's precedent.

(interjection) But you didn't menton that the discussion at catehory talk was entirely in suppot of the abbbgreviations, and you didn't mention the abbreviations as an option, and you didn't include a link to the discussions at category talk. Basically, you were pointed to an existing discussion n a naming structure, saw that there was agreement for a particular format, and instead of exploring whay that structure was preferred, decided that you liked a different one, so set out to bypass the existing discussin by making a CFD which excluded the opotion prefered by other editors. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(continued interjection) And you didn't mention that the discussion consisted of you and one or two other people. The concern by Mai Oui! was length of the name, and I never saw a support of MP as accurate. So I think a concern about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is a valid concern. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) suggests that such abbreviations are fine in article text (though MP is not one of those listed), Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer spelled-out phrases to acronyms says rather clearly that abbreviations should not be used in names. See also the even more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). In order to cite WP:IAR, one needs a reason, and name length is not a valid reason from what I have read. All that aside, What I also did was link to all relevant discussions in my nominations. There was full transparency to my actions. (Continuing on below.) - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First: there were four contributors to that discussion, not "one or two".

OK, you had a concern about abbreviations. But did first you looked at the wrong guidelines: those guidelines are about naming articles, but what we are discussing here is categories. The relevant one guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), which depreactes abbreviations, but also says "Avoid names that are too long or too short. Short, simple names are preferred for categories"

Did you raise that concern in the discussion? No. You ignored the discussion and the long history behind it which coukd have been shown if you had asked, and went straight to CFD.

And you didn't link o the discussion. You linked to the talk page, rather than to the discussion. (It's a long talk page, and readers are unlikely to raed through all of it to find he relevant bit) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And now we begin with a question of what's "true" in accusatory statements. sigh.

Please take a moment and go look at the links. First, I did link to the discussion [16], not to your talk page. Second, when I did link to your talk page, I actually linked to exactly where the discussion was on your talk page (through the use of "#") See my comments atthis CfR. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only didn't I receive a response about them, but I didn't receive a response at all, for quite some time.

(interjection) Indeed. Because I was not a my computer, as you see from my contribs log. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, your first action, after 11+ hours of being away from your computer, rather than continue the discussion on your talk page, which above you've stated was where you feel that the current consensus was, instead was to immediately start a CfD draft in your sandbox [17], then to comment to others that you were drafting such a proposal, and then to propose it. If you were acting in such good faith, I would have presumed that you might have at least done as I did, and commented on your talk page about it. That you didn't, and that you rushed to pursue your counter nomination... Well, considering how loudly you've called my nominations "bad-faith noms", I wonder if actually your counter nomination was such a one. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

JC37, the nominator of that CFD had already kindly agreed to withdraw in favour of a new joint nomination. The longer I let that new nomination, the more likely it was that more people would spend time to a CD that was going. That's why the new CFD hads to be the first step. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The way that reads to me is that you felt that you had to rush your counter nomination because you felt that the people commenting at the existing CfDs needed the guidance of your new CfD? I would presume that's what comments in an existing CfD are for, which, again, you were welcome to do. FYI, as far as I can tell, you just stated that your nomination was a POV nomination. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was not until after BrownHairedGirl had nominated a separate set of nominations on the following day, and my subsequent responses to them, that she said anything at all.

(interjection) Jc37, that's a neatly incomplete summary, isn't it?

If you read the CFD, you'll see that

• The nomination was made by Smerus at 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• At 10:04, 6 November 2006 , I posted to opoose the nomination and note an earlier discussion, and asked the nominator to withdraw
• At 10:20, 6 November 2006, I added a further comment, noting the need to include the other categs, and the support for a "shorter consistent naming structure" (the nomination would increase the length of already over-long category names).

I then posted a message to each of the contributors to the CFD, pointing out the existence of an ongoing discussion at category talk.

• Jc37 replied, noting that while the agreement at category talk was for shorter names, Jc37 disagreed. I replied, noting the need for consistency;
• Shortly afterwrds, I left my computer for the day (last contrib 11:01), and did not return until to wkipedia until late in the evening: see my contribs.

• I saw that there was more discussion on my talk, but finding nothing from Smerus, my first priority was to go to the CFD to see if Smerus had agreed to withdraw the CFD. He had, so I created the new CFD and thanked him. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that you were uninterested in any other discussion except the hope that someone had withdrawn their nomination so that you could go forth with yours, and ignored entirely that not all nominations had been withdrawn? Wow. Also, AFAIK, once nominated, the nominator can attempt to withdraw the nomination, but the CfD remains open until an uninvolved admin decides that there is consensus to close. (For example, if the nominator had suggested rename, and the commentors all said delete, and the nominator attempts to withdraw the nom to avoid deletion, the closing admin has the discernment to note that, and choose to close or leave open based on that.) I don't believe that Smerus's nomination was clear-cut at that point, and so closing as a withdraw would seem to me to be pre-mature. (And an excuse to post the counter nomination.)- jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that it is in the right of a nominator to withdraw their nomination, and that had been done. Your addition of subsequent categories didn't alter that. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to try to cast a pe-existing proposal as a counter-nomination, and to steadfastly oppose any attempt to discuss it. Wjy this insistence on jumping in on a existing discission, rushing the ategories concerbed to CFD, and then ejecting efforts to having the original categories propsal discussed too?

I have not any point suggested that your noninatons should not be duscussed, simply that you should place them alongside the other options. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one "rushing" was you. I actually was discussing with you and Mai Oui, and nominated the cats out of that discussion. I don't see that you did so as well. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How on earth was I rsuhing? You nominated Category:British female MPs, Category:Current British MPs etc, without posting anything to the discussion at category talk, ithout aiting to hear why the shorter anmes were favoured, and you even nominated one category for a new title which would clearly be factually wrong. :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

At that point, I started to try to discuss with her, but after seeing the situation, I decided that the best idea would be to suggest that a non-involved admin sort it all out.

Since then, I've not been on Wikipedia (for unrelated RL reasons). And apparently she's attempted to "clarify" / "modify" the previous nominations. I am still not certain why she has such a problem with allowing the nominations as listed, and suggesting her changes once they were finished, if she feels so stongly about it.

Anyway, At this point, I'm not going to presume what to think about this. What I'd like to see is the original nominations be "un-modified", and run their course, and the "duplicate" nomination re-listed once they are done. However, this is now a mess, since several people have already voted in the duplicate nomination, and with her "modifications", the existing noms would seem to be a mess now as well.

I wish whoever deals with this a lot of luck and discernment : ) - jc37 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: As far as I can tell, all the categories in question were tagged either by the original nomination, or by me. I don't believe that BrownHairedGirl updated any of the tags for her duplicate/subsequent nomination. - jc37 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the easiest thing to do would be close ALL of the nominations right now as duplicates of each other, and the two of you can get together and nominate them again, without any other nominations getting in the way and confusing me. Would either of you have a problem with that? --Kbdank71 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kbdank71, that's fine by me, as long as there is some discussion first to ensure that the nominations start off by all offering the various options for which there is obviously some support, and that they include the relevant sub-categories (I'm not sure that any of the existing nominations are complete). I suggest that rather than discuss it in user space, that the discussions should take place at Category talk:British MPs. I hope that's acceptable to everyone.

I should stress that I'm not suggesting any sort of stitch-up or attempt to exclude anything beforehand, just a bit of work to ensure that participants in a CFD are presented with some clear and concise options so that the CFD discussion is less likely to get confused by more options being added in after it has started. I know that folks are entitled to add options, but a bit of preparation should help to reduce the need for that. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

oops! by "some discussion first" I meant discussions before renomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that's exactly what she wants, and has apparently striven for through her disruptive counter-nomination, I am sure you can imagine that I am hesitant to agree to that. I would not oppose the current noms all being re-listed adjacent (but not combined) with BHG's counter nomination (something that has been done previously with similar/related nominations), with BrownHairedGirl's unhelpful modifications of the previous noms removed as "confusing" (As Kbdank called them) except that her nominations, as duplicate, were not "complete", since they weren't tagged (simply because previous nominations were already underway). So I would think that her counter nomination should be removed, since it was not tagged. The thing is, nominations are "timed". And while this discussion continues, time is counting down. No matter what happens, I think it would be fair to list them for an additional day or two, due to BHG's intervention. I'd like to hear Kbdank's further opinion on all of this, and once the discussion is done, I have no problem deferring to his judgement. - jc37 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Jc37, you were pointed to existing discussion, saw the propsals being discussed there, and had some probems with them (as you are entitled tob do: that's why they were being duscussed!). Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. It's a real pity that you didn't discuss your concerns before making a nomination, but since your proposals postdate theose at category talk, and since yours arose directly out of the category talk proposals, you can hardly call the earlier ones counter-proposals.

That's unfortunate, but to ask that the earlier proposals which you ignored should be removed is simply a stitch-up. If you ideas are good, why not let them be tested alongside those the earlier proposals which you decided not to discuss? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Did you contribute or express your concerns? No, you went immediately to a nomination of something very different. " - That's an outright misrepresentation of the truth (I will refrain from calling it an outright lie, for civility reasons). As your talk page rather clearly shows. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

jc37, if you extract part of a sentence and quote it out of context, it's easy to cast it as a a misrepresentation. You did indeed respond on my talk page. But what I refered to into the comment you selectively quoted from was that you did clearly read the discussion at category talk, but did not participate there, where you could have explained to other editors why you disagreed with them; nor did you wait for a response from me before making your nominations. You simply decided that you wanted a different proposal, and went ahead and nominated yours, and now you object to any other propoisal being on the table at the same time. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not take any action I am having massive problems with BrownHairedGirl's conduct on another discussion, where once again she is interfering with the normal course of discussion and making things incredibly complicated. I can see no justification to give her what she wants, and doing so will just encourage her to disrupt more discussions in the future. Nonomy 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And I am having massive problems there too, Nomony. I have never before seen a noninator set to remove all the keep votes from a CFD by sploitting them off to another CFD. Nice try, though. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I've noted, I'm becoming rather troubled by BrownHairedGirl's actions, which I feel have been rather disruptive in CfD in several places. But those aside, here's the simplest procedural point: Her nominations aren't tagged, and cannot be tagged, because there are existing nominations underway. If the tags of existing discussions were removed, I would presume that that would be even more of a disruption. So based on that, I suggest that the non-tagged nom be closed, or at the very least relisted once the others have completed, per existing CfD process. - jc37 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all a red herring, because as you know, they can't be separately tagged. The available procedures in such cases are either to withdraw the nominations in favour of a new CFD which will need new tags (which you rejected), or to make a counter-proposal in an existing CFD, which I did (and which doesn't need new tags). It's one thing to try to pre-empt an existing discussion by pre-emptively launching an alternative CFD, but it's a bit rich to then try to block the original proposal from being considered as an alternative. Running two CFDs in parallel on the same issue is an obvious no-no: both could pass, in which case we'd have a conflict. Running them back-to-back makes litte sense either, because them we could have two renames in rapid succession. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of prods without reason

User:Kappa has been removing prods from hundreds of articles and giving no explanation, and making other changes that appears to be vandalism, I started reverting a few, and he just reverts back, I don;t have time for an edit war. He has had a number of previous warnings reagrding this. I reported him at [Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] - but removing prods may not be considered vandalism. If I'm right there is a lot of change to be reverted ASAP. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kappa does this quite often. Once a PROD is contested, you take it straight to AfD. Yanksox 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You cannot be serious, that's hundreds of articles that would have to be done. Why is that not vandalsim and why is he not banned? --ArmadilloFromHell 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Because there's nothing wrong with removing prod tags? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? Yikes. It's only vandalism if it's made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's not at all clear that removing Prods is done with that intention, even if it's done repeatedly and without explanation. A contested Prod is a contested Prod, and goes to AfD or it stays. They're not made to be put back after removal. If you don't know why Kappa removed a Prod in a particular case, asking would be better than reverting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would really be nice if he (and anyone else) would give a coherent reason when de-prodding. Unless the nomination was truly bad... I've seen ones where the rational is just "notability" or "nn". But in a lot of these he's de-prodding for rather technical reasons but giving no explanation, that just leads to confusion. --W.marsh 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanations are good; communication is good. Has somebody asked Kappa why he's doing what he's doing? What's a "technical" reason for de-prodding? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well one example of a technical de-prodding was removing it from an article that had been listed as not being in English for 14 days, for some reason the page says they have to go to AfD to be deleted, not PROD, presumably Kappa was de-prodding for that technicality. --W.marsh 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if it makes an assertion of notability ... could be a technicality, anyway. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user is entitled to remove prod tags if they don't think the article should be deleted, for whatever reason, and doing so is certainly not vandalism. However it would be simple to give a reason in the edit summary, even if the reason is simply disagreeing with the opinion of the original tagger, and Kappa ought to do so, if only to avoid further confusion.

Also note that revert warring over prod tags leaves you open to WP:3RR. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While an unexplained deprodding can make me pull my hair out, it doesn't matter. A deprod counts as an objection to an uncontested deletion. That's been there since prod was created. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the lack of edit summaries that is the main issue here. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion says : Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. and there are several warnings regarding summaries in Template:TestTemplates. I've had many prods removed by other editors - but always got an explanation in the summary. (BTW, none of the prods in this matter were put there by me) --ArmadilloFromHell 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See this section. I know it can be grating, but thems the apples. Maybe we should have this conversation over there, but as it stands now, you will likely only find admins and experienced users that are sympathetic, but still support Kappa and anyone else's right to remove prods w/o a reason. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If Kappa is the one removing hundreds of tags, I think it should be him creating these AFD's not us. If he has a reason to believe it is notable, then fine. But why does he get off by just removing the things and not even having to deal with the after effects of a hundred AFD's? semper fi — Moe 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing a prod is simply taking down the Sword of Damocles to allow a discussion about the article. No one need state a reason for removal, since "don't delete this without a debate" is obvious in the act of removal. Whether the editor wants to state an opinion, or simply wants a debate to take place is up to the individual editor. If in the process, he doesn't want the article deleted, then he simply doesn't bring it to AfD. Prod is a shortcut to deletion. Sometimes you get to take it, other times you're stuck taking the long way around. Deprodding should be enough to convince the prodder to have a second de novo look and occasionally find their reasoning was off. Unfocused 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't do "technical" deprods. Roberto Bravo was a legit stub in English with some extra Spanish which I thought the folks at PNT might like to see. Kappa 04:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: nobody said that the debate prompted by deprodding has to take place on AfD, it could also be handled on article or user talk pages first. If consensus isn't found there, then AfD is still an option. Unfocused 04:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like this is good material for an RFC, about how, when, and why to deprod; I think there's some reasonable displeasure with how Kappa goes about doing something unusual, which is somewhat overlapping with the usual someone-disagrees-with-me-argh displeasure. Can we take this to User talk:Kappa or an RFC page or something instead of ANI now? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• One of the suspected potential problems with WP:PROD was "that a single user can simply "veto" all proposed deletions without giving a reason or improving anything. Of course, that would be disruption to make a point. If this proves to be a problem, we will likely create some rule to prevent it".
• Now I would like to see some statistics on this before jumping to a conclusion, but if Kappa is deprodding lots of articles and those articles have a strong tendency of being deleted on AFD, then Kappa is creating lots of extra work for other people for no good reason, and he should stop that. Anyone who is experienced with AFD should have a feeling which kinds of articles tend to be uncontroversial deletes, and should respect that consensus even if personally disagreeing with it. >Radiant< 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started the RfC. Kavadi carrier 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• A simple count shows that of Kappa's last 1000 edits to article space, 298 were deprods, or about 29%. This spans roughly the last two months. A quick glance over the deprods seems to indicate that nearly none of them made any changes to the article text; someone with a bot can make a more careful analysis if they want.
• As corollary to what I said above, if Kappa is not deprodding all that many articles and/or those articles don't tend to get deleted on AFD, there wouldn't be much of a problem (and indeed, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem here). Judged by his talk page, certain users are nevertheless unhappy with Kappa's conduct; perhaps mediation may alleviate this. >Radiant< 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)

I am not sure if this is the right place to report this, but this user has been adding some rather questionable edits which seem in violation of WP:POINT, especially in light of his recent FAC and peer review. From his recent contribution history:

• [18] - Redirected Point-of-view to Obvious
• [19] - Redirected Apparently to Obvious (see the bottom of Wikipedia:Peer_review/Betrayal_at_Krondor)
• [20] - Reliable Source (see User_talk:Scientizzle#What_is_wrong_with_saying_that_Rolling_Stone_is_full_of_-----.3F)

EDIT: Additional edits:

• [21] - Created and redirected False virtue to Virtues of Ultima
• [22] - Created and redirected Humilated to Humility
• [23] - Edited Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal to prove a point.
• [24] - Another WP:POINT violation
• [25] - Vandalized Science page
• [26] - Created Homogay to redirect to homosexuality

Gzkn 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And this entire thread is questionable. [27] And if you look at his talk page (and those of editors who have been calling him on his crap), he's said 'sorry, I understand better now and I won't do it again' about a dozen times in half as many days. Personally, I think he's a reincarnation of User:Courtney_Akins. But whoever he is, he's clearly a troll, taking the (long, slow) piss out of well-meaning editors. And what's with all his edits? He's edited his own talk page about 100 times in less than a week (half of which he was blocked for), and a couple of articles another 100 or so times. Anchoress 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it's me. Do you have any questions? I've been autoblocked once now, and I'd prefer to avoid such a thing in the future. I may or may not be well meaning, I'm sure you'll be able to judge for yourselves. Chris 04:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we will. Why did you create Cuntbucket exactly? I reverted some of your nonsense, and deleted that one, and when you e-mailed me yesterday asking to be unblocked I looked at your contribs and thought -- troll. Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia, or for some other reason? Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or choice. That said, I am definitely in support of improving Wikipedia. However, sometimes one can only do that by challenging the existing Establishment. You may wish to read Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal. Chris

You mean this bit? : "The motivation of a vandal ranges, but their purpose is the same; to get attention. " Regards, Ben Aveling 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly getting it now. Chris

Chris had vandalized Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal (see above list) in hopes of making a point. I have since reverted his vandalism. Gzkn 05:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And you're going to want to read WP:POINT REAL soon. --InShaneee 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty pointless to me. Sorry. Chris 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway -- I'm sensing a lot of hate here. I'm gonna go cool off outside. Cheers Chris

And, despite being extremely prolific over the past year, this editor was completely silent during the time Courtney was editing, and made few or no edits on the days that USC Cheerleader was editing. Anchoress 05:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is him too 70.70.200.149 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Shawcable, Surrey, BC, CA. Do we know where the Courtney troll was from? Note that there is some clear vandalism in this history (example [28])

And Chris, it's not hate your sensing, it's that trolling wastes our time, and yours. I can see from some of your edits that you are knowledgeable about a lot of things and are capable of being a good editor. Some of us aren't kids any more, and we'd much rather be writing articles than cleaning up after mischievous kids. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And, the IP edits started just hours after Courtney was blocked. Anchoress 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user has already been blocked twice in the past week. Once by myself, another on his IP address ([29]). The insults have been fun [30], and I put up an ANI thread five days ago [31], though it garnered only one reply. Considering the IP block, this is essentially his third chance in the last week and it looks like he's for some reason already burned it. I'd suggest a longer block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a last warning on his talk page. Shortly afterwards, he made this edit. I request that he be blocked by an administrator. I'm getting tired of tracking down and reverting his edits. Gzkn 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given him an indefinite block. I'm tired of this nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that was definitely the right thing to do. --Masamage 07:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance. -- Scientizzle 07:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast, pardners. User:ChrisWright1979. Anchoress 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Block log. InShaneee nailed him, thankfully. I knew that wasn't that last we'd see of him, and wouldn't be surprised if he continues (though more subtly). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well he's got a lot of pit stops before he gets to subtle. ;-) Anchoress 19:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to User:ChrisWright1979, "this is the third new account I've created over the past week". Cjwright79 (talk · contribs) & ChrisWright1979 (talk · contribs)...What's the other one? -- Scientizzle 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could just be the classic, "Release four pigs in the school and number them 1,2,3, and 5" prank. --InShaneee 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like ChrisWright79 (talk · contribs) & ChrisW (talk · contribs) [both blocked] are other socks of this user... -- Scientizzle 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be another one: Bradleybittinger (talk · contribs) (check out the vandalism then quick reversion, and also the weird note to UtherSRG). Anchoress 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it isn't this same user, Bradleybittinger's edits have been all vandalism (may have been involved in the creation of Nelson Wu) and may warrant a block if the user (or his sock) continues... -- Scientizzle 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I dealt the block, anyone else want to deal with the unblock request? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, has anyone gone through the contributions made under Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)? I tried going through some of them the other day, but I'm afraid I don't have the patience to sort through the few legitimate edits he made and the vandalism/trolling... Gzkn 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through a bunch of them, but not all; like you I ran out of patience. I'll have another look. Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris just emailed me and told me the names of (supposedly all) his accounts:

• cjwright79 cjwright79 (talk · contribs)
• ChrisWright79 ChrisWright79 (talk · contribs)
• ChrisWright1979 ChrisWright1979 (talk · contribs)
• Lordofring Lordofring (talk · contribs)
• MegaManEx MegaManEx (talk · contribs)

And he had some lovely things to say to me too. Oh boy! My first abusive email thru WP!! I'm so excited! Anchoress 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me, too, very politely asking me to unblock him. He says that he wants to come back to Wikipedia and work for "consensus and sanity." I told him I'm not an admin, and that we get a lot of people who "reform" and then continue to wreak havoc. However, I also said that if he's really serious about becoming a positive influence, perhaps he should request arbitration and have some limits put on him. I think following those limits for a while would be excellent proof of good intentions, but I pointed out that I can't promise anything even if he does that. Extreme humility would be required, and a lot of you are so tired with dealing with this mess that it may not be a possibility. It's a thought, anyway. --Masamage 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I respectfully submit that he's a pathological liar and a chronic manipulative unrepentant incorrigible troll. This is what he sent to me (I know it's bad netiquette to post private email, but I didn't ask to be contacted privately, so I don't feel a need to keep it private):

Lawful Good? What a sham. It's also a shame that I have to live in the same country as you.

I suggest you remove your head from your ass and kindly resolve the matter of my being banned in a sensible and just manner. I see that virtually every administrator of Wikipedia is corrupt and intellectually lazy. You see the rules as being able to be molded into whatever you want them to be. Of course, this works perfectly. Except I'm sick of this bullshit.

Regardless, I have no interest in continuing this silly escapade.

The individual who said that I was taking the 'long, slow piss' out of everyone is quite right. I'm sending you fine folk this message: your sham reign is over. I will not go away. Your illegitimate and entirely evil ways will not be ignored. I haven't attempted to talk to Jimbo yet, but that's definitely becoming an option.

His MO is that he trolls and trolls until people get fed up, then he makes nice and sucks up and acts repentant until he gets unblocked. Then he starts trolling again. I'm not bugged by his communication, but I am absolutely convinced that this editor has no intention of reforming. He's just yanking our chains. Anchoress 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I got an email as well — apparently 70.70.200.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I put a 24-hour block on last week for trolling and vandalism, was him, and he's taken the opportunity to blame me on some of his other user pages. His email asking me to unblock him was polite, but had an air of insincerity about it (he said that based on my user page I appeared to be "a sane and godly fellow", an odd phrasing to say the least). I told him that I saw no reason to unblock him — his vandal/troll edits far outnumber any positive contributions to the encyclopedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had five so far. The final one was the only rude one, the others were polite pleas for unblocking. Not falling for that again. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy did I waste my breath on his talk page trying to help him out. His next message he STILL wouldn't promise NEVER to troll again (which was my recommendation to him). Seems like he thinks he has some sort of right to troll. Anyone want to get in touch with his ISP about this? He needs to be sent a strong message that he's the one that's done the wrong thing, and if he's abusing admins here there's not much point unblocking him. If his ISP gets onto him he just might get the message. Curse of Fenric 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that Shaw's Acceptable Use Policy [32] covers internet trolling. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about the emails on top of the trolling. Falls under harassment doesn't it? Curse of Fenric 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I doubt contacting his ISP would help unless he sent a death threat through those e-mails. If he continues to abuse the "e-mail this user" option, is there a way to block him from using that feature? Gzkn 09:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Three abusive emails today, two with the subject heading "Fucker!". Lovely. One of them ended with the rather baffling sentiment, "Have fun in Penn. State, you penitent bitch." Unfortunately, vocabulary confusion isn't sufficient cause to complain to his ISP... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird. I got another one, but it still wasn't rude. All it did was thank me for being "sane" and inform me that, just for my info, the word 'vandal' might be considered highly racist to some people. :) --Masamage 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to all who are getting these emails. If you haven't done so already, make them bounce if you can. You can program Outlook Express to bounce emails you don't want. I don't know about others. If you have access to your email like I have (a domain host including email servers) you can program them to bounce this sort of thing. If this user persists with different email addys, that's spamming and that CAN be reported to an ISP. Even if they are using providers like Hotmail for example. Curse of Fenric 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't responded to any, doing that provides him with your email address. Not an optimal solution in my opinion. Just set up filters to block the emails. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my latest one has a general message: "Please relay to the group at the Incidents desk that I give up, and will simply wait this one out. If they want to keep me blocked me for a year, five years, ten years, fifty years; so be it. It's not the end of the world, and besides which, chances are good that I actually do need to suffer the consequences of my behaviour for a while." So, I guess that's that? --Masamage 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So is this discussion sufficient evidence that Mr. Wright has been banned rather than just blocked? I'd like to speedy delete his "contributions" of Category:Zones of EverQuest and constitutent articles but can't unless he's "banned". =) Powers ^T 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And he's back, again

Vangran (talk · contribs). Claims to have reformed and etc. (as he did before) [33]. Unfortunately, one of his first edits was this rather trollish remark [34]. Anyone up for blocking, again? I think it might be worthwhile to do a checkuser IP check to see if it's remained static, and if so block it to prevent further socks for awhile. I'm wikibreaking for the rest of the day though, so if someone else can handle it, it would be appreciated. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of giving him this one solitary last chance. If he blows it, he's gone; otherwise, so much the better, right? And I don't think that edit you link is trollish, personally. He should of course be very cautious about engaging in debates with anybody, on the other hand. --Masamage 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is trollish to edit someone else's talk contributions. IMO if he really did want to edit constructively he would do so without drawing attention to himself. I stand by what I said about him above, I think he's a pathological liar, a troll to the Nth degree, and I think he has a hardon for sucking people's time and goodwill. The problem with 'giving him another chance' is that he is an extremely prolific editor, making 100s of edits a day, and if we do give him a chance, someone is going to have to check them all to keep an eye on him. Are you volunteering? If so, then yeah, I'm all for giving him another chance. Anchoress 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He said the he noticed strong Christian nihilism in the other user, so he would therefore be impossible to reason with. He then went on a bit about Wikipedians putting too much trust in Ivory Towers. How is that not trollish? This is much the same thing that he did with his last account. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe you're right.

Is there some kind of special limit we could put on him? I don't know how ArbCom works exactly, but it seems like part of what they do is suggest restrictions on problem editors to help them become more constructive. Would something like that work? --Masamage 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a limit that can be placed on him. His accounts can be blocked. See, if he truly wants to edit Wikipedia constructively, he can create an account and keep his nose clean without being a schmuck or trumpeting his previous identities, and we would never know. The fact that he made dubious edits then contacted you to fess up tells me he's still just yanking our chains. Anchoress 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My view is - he won't take no for an answer, and is trying to not so subtly evade the blocks he has already suffered. I personally take the view of "no more chances". If the block is infinite and he is banned for good, he can wait until doomsday - he won't get in on that account. It's a shame account names can't just be deleted. What Crustacean said about Christian whatever it was proves indeed that he can't be spoken to. I tried and look where it got me - he all but ignored my advice and assumed the right to troll. So I say, maximum action. Ban all his ID's permanently and note his IP, and any ID's that are from the same IP or at least the same ISP be labelled a potential sock puppet. Curse of Fenric 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The block evasion point is a good one. You've all been around here longer than I, so I can easily imagine that you've got a lot more experience with this sort of thing. I still instictively prefer to give one last chance, but I accept that this might just be naïveté on my part (and I haven't had to put up with the obscenity-filled emails some of you have received). I'll support whatever decision is made. --Masamage 02:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz/Thekohser) attempting to run for ArbCom

It appears that Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz) is attempting to run for arbcom, based on the argument that he had over 1000 edits under several accounts. He is also harassing people who delete his statements, including me and Centrx. I've noticed that he edits from various IPs in the 72.94.*.* range, which leads me to think that a range block might be necessary. Scobell302 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the pages that need to be monitored at this moment are Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements and Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. Scobell302 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I could be totally wrong here, but if one of his accounts is subject to a ban by Jimbo doesn't that make him inelligable by default. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Any attempt to run for ArbCom by this user is blatant trolling. There is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of their passing, even if they were not permabanned and below the edit count limit. I vote we deny recognition and just nuke any further attempts. Guy 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• sounds sensible. "AGF" doesn't mean "prance around ad libitum". dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• A block for disruption may be in order as well... ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx blocked him as an abusive sock hours before you woke up. Which, is the proper course of action seeing that it is an abusive sock of a banned user. pschemp | talk 14:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth semiprotecting the candidate statement page, which only the candidates and election officials should be editing anyway. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

74.129.234.170

This user really needs monitoring. When he was reverted by Crossmr, he added insults to Crossmr's userpage. When I reverted and warned him, he did the same to my userpage as well. Can someone watch over him and, if necessary, block him? Scobell302 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:UNFanatic

User:UNFanatic has uploaded this image 3 times after it has been deleted 4 times for G10. A big X through a national flag should not be tolerated

Please take action --MCMLXXI 07:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the page, and protected it so that it can't be uploaded again. Thanks. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

article Jim Clark

Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is undergoing a low level revert war initiated by Pflanzgarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). At RFI we were recommended to report this ongoing incident here at AN/I.

• this diff by an indef blocked sock is similar to this diff by Pflanzgarten. this diff shows that sock BT44 is reverting version of the article that is very similar to the old version favoured by Pflanzgarten.
• Hunserug's contribs demonstrates that it is a single purpose account
• The date on Hunzerug's user log demonstrates that it was a sleeper account
• All known socks/impersonators have been dealt with at WP:SPP (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pflanzgarten (5th)) or WP:RFI.
• Is there a way to retain the Wikiway and lift protection on Jim Clark while preventing the disruptive edits? Perhaps an IP range block or adding Jim Clark to watchlists of many more volunteers? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense bios redux - checkuser needed?

I just noticed some extremely interesting history behind the articles mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson Wu (second nomination). An admin may want to review the deleted histories of Smegmer Kennington, Richard Carney (previous AfD), Brad Noland and Larry Fish (previous AfD) to determine if there is a case for checkuser. This was previously mentioned on ANI in July; see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nonsense bios. Kavadi carrier 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• The user that created the articles abovementioned except Brad Noland has been blocked already. Unless it has any use for existing ArbCom case, Checkuser would probably reject/tell you it's fishing. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly spurious RfC opened regarding Sarah Ewart by Methodology/Ottawaman

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sarah_Ewart in which possible socks (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ottawaman) Ottawaman (talk · contribs) and Methodology (talk · contribs) protest against actions taken by Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), one of our most upstanding admins.

This is an FYI only, really, as if the checkuser comes out as people think it will, the RfC wasn't certified and can be speedy closed. But that's not to say that moral support might not be welcomed (perhaps at the "Outside view by pschemp" might be where to hang it.) ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. What a farce, actually. If I didn't have selfpreservation in mind (I don't like these types of trolling sockpuppets - I don't think anyone does, for that matter...), I'd close it right now as a bad faith RfC. Sarah is one of our best, and trolls like this only achieve loss to Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just been across - even a cursory glance at the contributions of Methodology (talk · contribs) tell you pretty much everything you need to know. Quack quack it's a duck!. It's a shame we don't have a quicker process to deal with such nonsense rather than the endless games we all get dragged into. --Charlesknight 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a quicker process, WP:IAR. I'm going to delete the RFC and indef block Methodology as an obvious abusive sockpuppet. With 10+ admins endorsing the idea that this is a sockpuppet, there is no point in continuing. Thatcher131 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Please keep an eye on the WP:RFC/U page, admins - Ottawaman has repeatedly blanked a portion of the page, removing two RFCs, to readd the Sarah RFC (in three different places!) – Chacor 13:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also support, let's go duck-hunting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done Thatcher 131! That was some awesome support there guys, I appreciate it. --Guinnog 14:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou everyone for your wonderful support...to say it is appreciated would be a massive understatement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect example of DefendEachOther and can't think of many folk more worthy, Sarah. Support deletion, support indef block. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call! -- Samir धर्म 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. I saw this in passing a couple of days ago and was hoping that people with more time would do the right thing to it. It seemed to have been completely without reasonable justification or criticism. Keep up the good work, Sarah. Georgewilliamherbert 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IP talk page warnings

74.93.44.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) engaged in a spree of attacks on the 3rd Nov. 5 days later the IP becomes active again but his only edit is to blank his talk page. The point is raised in IRC that he's broken some 'policy' and should have known he may only archive warnings (ridiculous!). I plead with User:Editor at Large not to take any action unless the IP returns to vandalism. It could be a different user - and WP:BITE applies. Despite that Editor at large replaces the warnings and adds a big nasty threatening template. [35] (didn't somone nuke those things?). I ask him to stop, it and revert his template. But without further ado, I am reverted by User:Shreshth91. I'm no going to editwar on this, so I'm bringing it here.

It is one thing replacing warnings on the page of an active vandal, but, after 5 days and no further vandalism, we need to uphold WP:BITE and also consider that it may be an innocent user on the same IP. We get confused innocents on OTRS all the time asking about nasty warnings. I made these points on IRC but was told that the IP broken policy and it needed enforced. Let's have a discussion here.--Doc^g 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc, the thing is that it makes it easier for editors using anti-vandal RC tools, who are warning editors on the fly. Some editors may not have the time or inclination or knowledge to check the history of the talk page for warnings, and this may create misconceptions for punitive action. If you weigh in the pros and cons, while removal of warnings may create some problems, keeping them there will facilitate transparency, and easily let people know about past activities of the user without going into the history/contribs. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you stumble across a blank but created IP usertalk page, then check its history before warning or blocking. If you've not time to do that - then I respectfully suggest that you haven't time to do RCP properly. Don't invent policies and then enforce them with nasty warnings because that is convenient for RC people.--Doc^g 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now really, if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself, and this doesn't really look that threatening to constitute WP:BITE. Archiving pages only means more trouble for blocking administrators, so this should not be supported in any form. Any such policy on archiving pages / removing warnings would only cause more process problems. I have welcomed the user, by the way. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

" ... if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself ... ". Absolutely ;not;. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that forces users to acquire an account. IP users should not be dealt with any differently to registered users. Proto::type 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not creating a new policy here. As I have said above, it is my job to make it easier for users to work here. Kindly do not accuse me of biting newbies, or of making up "nasty warnings", without rationale. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, someone nuked those things, but they're presently on DRV. The question is whether making the job slightly easier for recent change patrol warrants being incivil to newbies and revert warring to keep old warning templates on their talk page. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of either of this, but it has happened. Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, neither should warnings supposed to be (semi-) permanent black marks. The idea that you may only 'archive' your talk page in a certain way would be instruction creep. >Radiant< 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shreshth, Doc did not accuse you of biting newbies. He suggested that you should bear WP:BITE in mind before leaping to punish an IP user when the IP address was used five days earlier for vandalism. I don't know if you're aware of this, but IP addresses are not necessarily static. Proto::type 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shreshth91, forget what is 'easy' for you for a moment and focus on what you are doing here. User gets a warning. They read it and remove it because they don't like it. You then restore the warning. You've just edit warred. To re-insert something you know the user doesn't want to see. On their talk page. I'm sorry, but I can't see the benefits of 'easy' in not having to click on a 'history' link outweighing the 'bad' of actions which serve to greatly annoy users. Even when this is used 'correctly' (as opposed to all the times 'User A' puts a questionable or outright false warning on the page of 'User B' and then harasses them to keep it there) it is a net negative. --CBD 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay - I get it. Let's not make a big deal of a samll thing. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here's the AN discussion, and here's the DRV. --bainer (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:24.47.198.164

Has repeatedly removed non-harassing comments from their Talk page without discussion and without addressing the behavior in question, such as breaking infobox syntax over personal stylistic concerns, adding future information to articles before events have actually occurred, adding false information to articles, removing user comments from their talk, and adding information without proper citation. Since the anon refuses to leave warnings on his talk page unless threatened, other editors do not escalate their warnings as necessary. Was warned to stop the behavior or a report questioning the behavior would be filed--user promptly deleted it. Here are the most recent diffs:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]
6. [41]
7. [42]
8. [43]

Maybe I'm being harsh, but seems like a long pattern of uncivil behavior by the same user here to try to keep a "clean" image. - Debuskjt 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned users asking trolling questions at ArbCom elections

See [44], where an IP - which freely admits to be a banned user - repeatedly asks a question that can be seen as trolling. Same user has targetted other noms too. IIRC, banned users are not allowed to edit at all. Why should we, if we do, make an exception now? – Chacor 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For further info, see Avraham's candidacy. This IP is a troll from the war that broke out over circumcision. – Chacor 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The protection of the page after only two reverts was inappropiate, though. - 152.91.9.144^{23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)}

I saw more than two, there were some added earlier and reverted (around Nov 6 or Nov 7). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it doesn't quite match the stated protection policy, does it? - 152.91.9.144^{00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)}

Percy "Nobby" Norton

Why the f*** do people think this is a hoax?? are you mad??? --Cotnress 15:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask for undeleting an article. The correct place is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Kavadi carrier 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like our new user created PERCYNOBBYNORTON with the infamous briefs picture. Block Cotnress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please. Kavadi carrier 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And Bexy3-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well - both trolling DRV [45]. Kavadi carrier 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of the above are indefblocked. Also, User:Bpazolli promoted himself to admin this morning by adding the admin template to his user page and adding himself to the admin list, and is now indefblocked as well. Based on the IPs, all the Nobby vandals appear to be the same person. I suggest a Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore approach if any more get created, in accordance with WP:DENY. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bexy3-2 was blocked for 6 months, not indefinitely. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being undeleted. How many more times will this be re-created under new titles. I'm not going to mention them, lest WP:BEANS coming into play. --SunStar Net 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also indefblocked an impersonator account of User:Starblind (who was the blocking admin of cotnress). Syrthiss 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fys breaching probation, breaking article ban, edit warring again

User:Fys was blocked for 3RR (see Fys 3RR report, and subsequently banned for a week from editing the article:

"In accordance with the terms of your probation, you are hereby banned from editing Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all pages which redirect to it for the period of one week." --Slowking Man 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The notice of the ban has now been removed by Fys from his talk page (see diff]), and he is back making the same disputed changes to the articles from which he is banned: see Fys contribs

The disputed changes were being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square, where Fys has just blamed everyone else for blocking him. (see diff): "A useful step to resolving the dispute might have been to unblock me earlier. A useful step to not making the dispute worse might have been to realise that I never broke the 3RR in the first place. A useful step to never having the dispute in the first place might have been to read what I wrote in this edit nearly a month ago."

Plase can someone take action to stop these disputed changes being made unilaterally?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't edited that article, or a redirect to it, that I can see. Can you provide a diff? Morwen - Talk 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake: he did not edit the redirects. Fys's edits have been to articles which link to that one, by editing the constituency names in those articles to point to the one he wants to split: see, for example [46], [47], [48], [49]

Whilst formally keeping within the terms of the article ban, the purpose of these edits is to remove direct links, replacing hem instead with links to a redirect. I can see no purpose in this other than as preparation for a split. Fys has refused to continue the discussion on the merits of that split. (see ).

These edits seem to me to be a form of wikilawyering: keeping with the strict terms of the ban, but not the spirit of it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could another admin perhaps comment on this? Is it acceptable in this sort of situation for the banned user to do preparatory work for the article split which led to the ban being imposed? As above, that series of edits seems to me to be either WP:Wikilawyering or disruption to make a point, but maybe an admin who has considered this sort of thing before could clarify? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like he hasn't edited that article yet, but he posted a spurious "no personal attacks" warning on my talk page. The article ban notice has been restored on his talk page and I invite any administrator to block this user in case he removes it again. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Spurious" is it? Do you really want me to point to the edits and emails where you made personal attacks on me? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of baloney! May I remind you that it was you who spammed my inbox with unblock demands? Provide the diffs for you shalt find none. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, looky. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Fys for twenty-four hours for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Comments and suggestions invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think this situation sucks and Brownhairedgirl is not entirely free from responsibility. Fys' recent edits are related to the issue for which he was article-banned; the issue of naming/merging/splitting St George's Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency) and Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency). However, I'm not sure why changing the name in the MP's article is wrong. It seems common sense to me that in an article about an MP, his constituency should be called whatever it was at the time the MP served, even if the name was later changed, and irrespective of what the Wikipedia article is currently called—that's one reason we have redirects. (For example, Dean P. Taylor is listed as a congressman for New York's 29th, 33rd and 31st congressional districts, even though all those districts are now obsolete and their territory is part of the 27th.)

The issue for which Fys was originally blocked and article-banned was over how to deal with a district that either was renamed or altered so significantly that is should have a separate article. Listing MP's in their proper contemporaneous districts does not seem like a problem to me and Brownhairedgirl should not have reverted them (unless they were incorrect contemporaneous names).

I suppose if he apologized to Nick and calmed down, the civility block could be lifted early. I would not lift the article ban, but I would caution Brownhairedgirl not to revert Fys on other articles unless he makes factually incorrect edits. Listing MP's according to their contemporaneous districts is not necessarily a precursor to another edit war over the district's article. Thatcher131 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure; observe that mistakes were made, shake hands all around. If there is no reason to think there will be any more disruption, there is not need for the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher 131, I think that you may have misunderstood the situation. Maybe it would be clearer, if I highlighted the changes in this diff of Fys's edit to Lord Algernon Percy:

old link

• [[Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency)|St George's, Hanover Square]]
  (looks like this: St George's, Hanover Square)

Fys's replacement

• [[St George, Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency)|St George, Hanover Square]]
  (looks like this: St George, Hanover Square)

As you will see, in each case the name of the constituency is displayed as "St George, Hanover Square" (Fys removed an 's suffix, not sure if that was correct).

The substance of the dispute is that Fys claims that Westminster St George's is so significantly changed from St George, Hanover Square that it should not be in the same article; no other editor agrees, but all have agreed that Fys might be right and have sked Fys for more evidence. In the meantime, the consenus is to treat the 1918 change as a renaming rather than a new constituency, and therefore to keep the two constituencies in one article.

The current effect of Fys' edits was to repkace a link to an article with a link to a redirect. What was the purpose of that, if not as precursor to a split? The constituency name was displayed correctly before and after.

I will as you ask desist from reverting further such changes, but it does seem to me to contrary to good practice to replace a direct piped link with a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what he did, and your description is correct. I would hesitate to label it as intentional disruption; perhaps he plans to provide the necessary sources for his version and is getting ready. In the short run I would leave them alone per assuming good faith. Thatcher131 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There were originally two articles, but BrownHairedGirl merged them. Rather than characterising Fys as wanting to split the article into two, I think it would be more accurate to say that he wants to revert the merge.

In my view, two constituencies with different names and different boundaries are prima facie different constituencies, and should be considered so unless there is a compelling case to believe otherwise. One could make such a compelling case by going to the library and having a look at the Representation of the People Act 1918, but (as usual on Wikipedia it would seem) people on both sides of the dispute would rather argue than do research.

Hesperian 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem if Fys is unblocked, provided that he ceases with his disruptive acts. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shuppiluliuma being abusive, combative, not making good faith edits, etc

User:Shuppiluliuma has been doing numerous things, including reverting over and over, removing city names that have been discussed already, and making threats/offensive attacks such as "(do we have to kill you greeks one by one?)" in an edit summary, marking major changes as minor, and after I warned him with the 3rr template, "Well, I don't care. You people have Crusader mentality. But don't worry: Within a few centuries, we'll be back in Vienna (Never mind Greece)... So sweet dreams with the Greek names of Turkish cities." He is clearly out of control. --AW 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now he's adding nonsense to Izmir --AW 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

His unilateral re-kindling of the Greek-Turkish placenames WP:LAMEness is certainly not helpful, and much of it is "editing against consensus". I've already reverted him myself on one or two and consider myself sort of involved, otherwise I'd come myself and keep a very strict watch over editwarring on those articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just happened to see this. One of his edit summaries is extremely worrying: "do we have to kill you greeks one by one?" Death threats are really not acceptable. Jakew 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on that I blocked him for 31 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, in the context of Byzantine Ottoman Balkanian Greco-Turkish rhetorics I doubt any of his addressees would have been likely to take that one even remotely at face value, but sure, if nothing else we must take it as a sign of a deeply unconstructive attitude to this editing dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another reminder about reversions

This has been mentioned before, but I'd like to remind everyone to be careful when reverting edits to make sure something beforehand isn't missed. When I reverted this edit on 31 May, I missed the one immediately preceding (by the same editor; I did not know at the time that popups reversions and rollback are not identical), and this person's Commission Junction link has been active for over five months! Thanks to Poetxpress (talk · contribs) for finally catching it today... :( RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, further to that, I posted a warning on the AIV talk page re a phenomenon I've seen recently, with tag team vandalism between a registered and anon user; often, the anon vandalism will be rolled back to the last registered edit, which is also vandalism. Anchoress 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a lot of vandalism on the GMF page. Please take it out.

Thanx.

Tyson Moore es 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that you're referring to this, it's already been removed. Shadow1 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, that IP's been prolific. --Masamage 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium

User:Deuterium, an editor who was extremely combative and rude, and managed to get himself blocked quite a number of times in his brief editing career, has returned as User:FuManChoo. His return became obvious when he began edit-warring over the exact same issues as before, and trolling the exact same editors he previously targetted. This is his second sockpuppet (his first was User:ANecessaryWeevil). Eventually he was caught, and, as with the previous sock, I blocked this one under this clause of WP:SOCK:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

He then claimed he had lost the password to his original account, and wanted to be unblocked because he now "admitted" he was Deuterium. Well, actually, he demanded to be unblocked, many times, along with various other abusive statements. I offered to try to get him mailed a new password, but he insisted it had to be the new account, not the old one.

At this point, I'm thinking that not much good can come from this editor, and that a ban might be in order. What do others think? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that a ban is in order. In the interest of full disclosure, I tangled with User:Deuterium myself when he was kept posting my user name on his user page and so I may not be the most neutral party to be making suggestions about his fate. How many blocks does he have in total? I ask because I think a "community ban" is something that should not be applied lightly. (→Netscott) 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked twice in April, soon after he started editing. He then disappeared, returning in late July. He was then blocked 3 times in August. He did not edit after August. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that an offer to restore his account has been made we don't need to think about banning. If he accepts that option then it will become relevant. Until then, block all socks on sight per the above clause. JoshuaZ 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's mostly making demands IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on his Talk: page, insisting he did nothing wrong, and calling me a liar. I'm feeling very unmotivated about helping him at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta

Hopiakuta has been blocked by Centrx, who claimed he did some vandalism. I looked at Hopiakuta's contributions and he didn't vandalize anything. He requested to be unblocked, and i think he's getting a bit angry for this treatment. The difference is located here. Another editor reverted Centrx actions, proving that Hopiakuta didn't vandalize. Canderous Ordo 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

UNFanatic

THIS IS THE 4th TIME UNFanatic HAS UPLOADED THIS HATE IMAGE AFTER IT HAS BEEN DELETED 5 TIMES! A BLACK X THROUGH A NATIONAL FLAG SHOULD NEVER BE TOLERATED! PLEASE TAKE ACTION File:800px-Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus3.png --MCMLXXI 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. Next time, please do not use all capital letters when typing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Or bold your entire statement...or demand that action be taken...--InShaneee 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's obnoxious nature made me worry what else he was up to. It turns out he's only got about a dozen edits, including signing as another user. Anyone else smell a sock? --InShaneee 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Definately. The "no crossed off flags" bit was solely practiced by User:ROGNNTUDJUU!, a known and blocked sockpuppet. 68.39.174.238 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Move war at Beit Hanoun-related article

The article Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident is only eleven hours young, but has already been moved eight times, back and forth from Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident to Beit Hanoun November 2006 massacre. The result of this is that the article is Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, while the corresponding talk page is Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 massacre. I've issued a final warning on the article's talk page: Whoever moves the article again before consensus has been reached on the talk page, will be blocked for 24 hours. However, it's night over here in Europe, so I'm asking for the assistance of other admins to make sure that this move war stops. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for input: I've blocked Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours per the above warning. I have deliberately not moved the page back, so that others wouldn't have the opportunity to drag me into the dispute and claim I am involved (I've seen too much of that lately). Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) now says on the article's talk page that "by not reverting the title back to NPOV, we are rewarding such behavior." So should the article be moved back, or not? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

comment:why don't you block him(Runed Chozo)? you said Whoever moves the page again before consensus has been reached, will be blocked for 24 hours. Anyone. Even if you move it back to the current title. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC) --Nielswik_(talk) 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've move-protected the article until a consensus can be reached; this article shouldn't be a block-trap for editors. By the way, it appears that Runed Chozo has indeed been blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld

Much as I feel its a last resort sprotecting articles linked of the main page, like Saddam's article earlier this week Rumsfelds has gone totally off the chart. In the previous 3 hours its had over 250 edits - and AT LEAST 20 vandalism reverts - and that was just glacing up the history page quickly.

So, FYI, its sprotected. :)  Glen  23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mrpainkiller7 -> Disruption, impersonation.

Someone is likely evading a one week block imposed on him for personal attacks. He's doing it by causing mild distruptions (like this [50]) while impersonating someone else. I suppose he's just trolling, so I'm reporting it here for admin attention. Jean-Philippe 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a report on this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mrpainkiller7 as the user is using socks in an abusive manner to harass and impersonate me and circumvent his one week block. --Neurophyre^(talk) 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

24.218.212.136 Vandalism at page Saudi Arabia

At the history page for Saudi Arabia, it can be seen that the user 24.218.212.136 has vandalized the page thrice already on 9 November 2006 0737h, 8 November 2006 1023h, and 8 November 2006 1020h, which was quickly reverted by Mcorazao and myself. In the talk page, it has been suggested also that Saudi Arabia be locked for edits due to the vast number of occurences it has been heavily vandalized. -P. Rodriguez 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Next time please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (shortcut: WP:RFP). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Account compromised?

I suspect that User:Eixo's account has been compromised. I've never encountered this user before, but Eixo appears to be a productive editor (he/she even has barnstars and has contributed to featured articles). However, Eixo has vandalized George Allen (U.S. politician) several times today.[51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. I think a block needs to be put in place until this can be sorted out, because the vandalism hasn't stopped despite warnings. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari blocked him. --Coredesat 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is drunk.

Hmm... very interesting. —freak(talk) 05:27, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

I could easily see valued contributers becoming vandals when they're drunk. Grandmasterka 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that that userbox was added on August 31st. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More problems on Myron Wolf Child

IP making legal threats and claiming copyright infringement on talk page. JChap2007 02:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment of users and talk page vandalism

Not sure if this should go to the vandalism page or the PA page so I'm putting it here for the notice of admins.A user User:Nadirali has been rather disruptive on Talk:India with communally loaded statements[56], some of which he he copy-pasted from a hate-site[57]. He was reprimanded for copyvio and vandalism by other users[58][59] but he persisted nonetheless with harrassment of User:Fowler&fowler[60]. Hkelkar 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Borderline personal attacks by GoodCop

Had I chanced across GoodCop (talk · contribs) in any other way, I would have long since given them a warning about avoiding commenting on editors and borderline violations of WP:NPA (like this one). As it is, I only know about them and their editing habits because they voiced a bizarre opposition in my RfA and I tried to figure out where we'd crossed paths. (I still can't figure that one out.) Out of concerns of conflict of interest and inexperience, so close to my RfA, I'm going to ask that someone else review this user's edits. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have a tendancy to see any disagreement with his own POV as a personal attack and/or vandalism. And he seems to have more than a few fringe beliefs. I didn't see anything that justifies admin intervention, at the moment. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to report him. I removed a couple of what appeared to be highly POV comments [61] from the Racial realism article, and he reverted my edit calling it "POV vandalism". I reverted it back putting the reasons in my edit summary, then he reverted my edits again accusing me of "POV vandalism" once more, libeling "neutral-fact restorers", and violating Wikipedia policy. - JScott06 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your summary of the situation. His comments are wrong and his behaviour is inappropriate, but you should still try talking to him first, on his talk page. Give him a chance, even if you think he won't take it. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was wrong when I advised you to talk to GoodCop, but not because it was the wrong thing to do but because it was the right thing for exactly one person to do, either you or me, but not both of us. Live and learn. Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>This user is clearly on the verge of being a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. If only he had a few more strikes before people gave up on him.</sarcasm> JBKramer 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a process we should go through before we escalate. Sometimes things can be resolved through talking. And sometimes the attempt to talk makes the full situation clearer for those that we escalate to. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm being attacked by him as well. He seems unaware of WP:NPA. --Ronz 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, yes, GoodCop doesn't understand NPA. But in an odd sort of way, he's not trying to attack us. He's actually trying to defend himself from threats that only he can see. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the warning they have at the top of their talk page and their characteristic response[62] qualify as "unresponsive" to the community? They seem to have attempted to armour themselves against any disagreement at all. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would think a 24 hour block would be warranted for calling Ben a psychopath in that diff. Does anyone think it would be improper if I did so? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See the thread below. I blocked for 24h, personally I think that's lenient under the circumstances and if anyone wants to extend it they should do so. I also left a note on his Talk noting WP:NPA and WP:NLT. Guy 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope against hope that it helps. Life is bigger than Wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm still getting used to the way multiple sections sometimes crop up here for the same subject. RTFP for me... — Saxifrage ✎ 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too harsh on yourself. If I read correctly, JzG posted 4 minutes after you did. I think you've handled the whole situation well. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

High-speed page blanker

Sorry to bring this up here, but Danfifepsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass page blanking for a number of days now. The person was blocked yesterday for 24 hours and as soon as the block expired resumed the same behavior. I have reported this to WP:AIV over 20 minutes ago but no one is watching that page at the moment. Yamaguchi先生 07:37, 9 November 2006

Alkivar blocked him indef. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ulster Defence Association

Could an admin look at this talk page. I've reverted the addition made today, but I think it should be rolled back. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. Morwen - Talk 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nation Based Vandalism

Hi, user Tajik is systematically searching and changing Turkish related articles with wrong and unsourced informations. WikiArticles are not improving because of his/her wrongly editings. He/She is searching 'turk' or "turkic" words in an article and deleting or deforming sentence or changing with 'persian' word in a baseless way. And he generally makes this secretly. He/She is making these changes with 'minor edits'.
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
However, Tajik's systematically minor editings hardly affects of articles. And he/she always uses this illegal method. Please have a look at his/her contributions;<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdowsi&diff=78165928&oldid=78165559<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ghaznavid_Empire&action=history<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hephthalite&action=history (Almost all of the minor editings by Tajik)<br|>

Actually, these are the ones that i could see. Please look at Contr. ;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Tajik<br|> Secondly, if he/she is frustrated in editing he/she is inviting to article other wikipedians. What can be the evidence for teamworking else. He/she is not seeing wikipedia as an culture and information organization. He always deforms sourced turkic related articles and infos. He/she could has problems with other nations and races but is here true platform to solve his/her nation-based problems? Please help to improve Wikipedia...--Karcha 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While this does seem to be a legitimate problem, note that Karcha also copy/pasted this to the talk page of three admins, including myself. --InShaneee 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

inshanee, if you looked at my user page, you don't need to add this comment. I'm a new wikipedian and was unaware of AN/I that's why i posted this to three admins until one of these admin's suggestion.--Karcha 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Bluebot

User:Bluebot is adding {{uncategorized}} to lots of pages that are already sorted stubs, and therefore have a category. Not only do they have the stub category itself, but the stub can be a sub-category of a non-stub category as well. This is not something listed as an a recognized task on WP:RBOT and the bot does not follow WP:BOT#Good form by halting when a message is added to the talk page. I am requesting a block until this issue can be discussed. Grouse

Never mind, I am in error about the bot not halting or being in bad form, being confused by time zones ;). I retract the request. My apologies for implying bad form. Grouse 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Can some Admins have a look at this talk page and the arguments ensuing within - you may be aware of them, not sure. I came across them by accident, but I find his argumentative approach extremely worrying - along with all the other accusations floating around that page. Viridae^Talk 11:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just ahd a look at the page and noticed several administrators names. You may ignore this :). Viridae^Talk 12:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just indefintely blocked him. Yanksox 12:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Akaneon seems to be making some WP:POINT AfD nominations as retaliation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akaneon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with user who refuses to communicate

What can be done about an anonymous Wikipedia user who keeps deleting the same section of an entry day after day and replacing it with text that contains original research with no cited sources?

I have started a discussion on the page the person keeps posting the article to and have encouraged the person to join in on the discussion, but he/she has not replied after an entire week of this. I have also left several messages on the person’s user talk page which have been ignored. See user talk

By consensus opinion with other Wikipedia editors working with me on this entry, I have reverted this article daily for the past three or four days running.

I have attempted to have the page placed in "semi-protection" status twice, but have had my requests denied because the person felt that what was taking place is an "editing war" and not vandalism. While that assessment may be correct, I am at a loss here as to how else one could describe what the person is doing.

And what would be the remedy for resolving an "editing war" when the person in question refuses to communicate?

Any suggestions? I’m new at editing here and have not had any luck finding anything that addresses this situation anyplace else.

The Wikipedia entry in question is: Zodiac Killer

Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is in fact a legitimate argument for semi-protecting an article, and Durova seems to have done so in response to your posting here. For your future reference, attempting to contact them via the article talk page and their was entirely appropriate (if apparently unsuccessful). That is the proper and encouraged method of attempting to resolve edit conflicts. If the other party doesn't respond, we we describe it with the term "Sterile edit war", where people make changes back and forth without discussing or posting to talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

prboable (old) evasion

suspect annon 124.183.230.177 was User_talk:Premier evading a block (for evading a block) based on ([63] and [64]; is that best way to ref this?) dates and similarities in choice of topics.

then more recently this, ahem, robust sock puppetry(?) 124.183.172.88 who seems to be [65] doing the nastier bits for premier. as u can see i'm rather involved in this, i only wish to complaining about the s p.  → bsnowball 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazon affiliate spam

I recently had a request [66] at the site-wide spamlist denied[67]. Could we have a block on 217.106.166.* ? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The contributions are here btw: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]

Note that one of the anons (.17) tried to blank this section. Kavadi carrier 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this rangeblock request, but am not comfortable enough with rangeblocking to do it. Can an admin assist here please. — Moondyne 04:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Alphachimp 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deceptive gang attack committed by Saxifrage, BenAveling, and JScott06

The users Saxifrage, BenAveling, and JScott06 have committed a gang attack against myself, GoodCop, for having threatened their ability push their POV and to make cleverly-convincing personal attacks on behalf of said POV.

Conveniently, they have done so on this very page by making fraudulent reports (in the section 'Borderline personal attacks by GoodCop'), such that many of their abuses can be seen above. First, in Saxifrage's RfA, I had mentioned Saxifrage's use of the tactic of "libelling users as wikipedia policy violators on their talk pages in the convincing format of making a polite suggestion that deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties)". My vote comments were within the range of what is allowable, and Saxifrage knows it. Even Hoopydink, one of Saxifrage's supporters, admitted that on the RfA discussion. I see now that Saxifrage is confirming my vague memory of his abuses by doing the same behavior of making false accusations of policy violations, and even of admitting intent to commit the exact same abuse that I have described in the RfA "I would have long since given them a warning about avoiding commenting on editors and borderline violations of WP:NPA". I also note that Saxifrage waited until he was an admin (10 days) to make his deceptive report, so as to give it more weight on this board. That is precisely the type of abuse of admin status (among others) that I had feared Saxifrage would do.

I note that BenAveling was one of Saxifrage's RfA supporters. I also note that BenAveling has made several edits to the pseudoscience article (notably, inserting a mention of 'scientism', most likely as a strawman characterization of the opposition), and I am involved in the RfAr on the topic of pseudoscience. On said RfAr, I noted that pseudoskepticism is a behavior that is related to testosterone, aggression, and authoritarianism, and that it is akin to antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders. I also catalogged the members of a POV-pushing pseudoskeptical wikiclique, and the evidence of their long-term alliance. No wonder that Ben is mad at me. BenAveling also used Saxifrage's trademark tactic against me, that is, posting libel on my talk page in the convincing format of a polite suggestion that deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties). My talk page has a note at the top that specifically warns people not to use that tactic, so Ben was also using that tactic out of spite. Ben makes that libel even more convincing with his statement "you should still try talking to him first, on his talk page. Give him a chance, even if you think he won't take it.", and in so doing, proves how utterly underhanded he is. It is also a clever set-up for an accusation of violating the assume-good-faith policy, yet Ben's libel of me is clearly entirely false, being far outside the range of possible good-faith conclusions. Evidently Ben is a pseudoskeptic, and his libellous attacks on me on this page (which can be seen to be false be looking at my edits) and on my talk page clearly demonstrate the psychological traits of pseudoskepticism that I have described. Deletion of dry superficial facts that are very relevant to an article is vandalism (akin to blanking), no matter what you choose to call it, and if that vandalism causes the article to have a POV-bias, then it is POV vandalism, which I have reverted, and Ben knows it.

I note that JScott06 made a deceptive report to this board right after I had implied that he would be reported (edit summary: "JScott06, do not libel neutral fact-restorers as having 'labelled opponents'. That is a gross violation of the civility policy. Persistent POV vandalism is also a serious offense."). As is explained in my edit summary, JScott06 libellously accused me of 'labelling opponents' because I restored facts that he desires to suppress. Evidently, JScott06 knew that he was in trouble, and thought that he could get out of it and simultaneously harm his enemy by reporting his reporter before he himself was reported, but all that does is prove that JScott06 is well aware of his guilt.

Of course, administrative action can be taken against those 3 users, but I am even more concerned with the long-term problem at hand -the problem that there is currently no well-known wikipedia policy that specifically forbids the behavior of posting libel in the convincing format of a polite suggestion which deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because both communicating parties know the truth). Note that that tactic also cleverly plays into the assume-good-faith policy, because any victim that reports the tactic can be falsely accused of violating that policy. The admins should therefore warn users about that tactic from now on. It is nearly statistically impossible that Saxifrage and BenAveling are the only people on wikipedia that use it.

GoodCop 14:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

update:

Another POV-vandal, Ronz, has now used the same deceptive tactic on my talk page. As with Ben, it is most likely largely out of spite for my warning on the talk page to not do so. This proves what I was saying, that that deceptive tactic is widespread on wikipedia, and not isolated to Saxifrage and BenAveling

The user JBKramer (who just now joined in the gang attack, albeit with a very obscure sarcastic statement) is a pseudoskeptic, and has been criticised for gross POV-pushing and incivility on the pseudoscience RfAr. I should also note that the use of vague attacks is another convincing method of personal attack, because the vagueness serves to give the impression that the insult is so obviously true that it need not be explained clearly.

GoodCop 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So... wait. You say that psuedoskeptics are aggresive and have a personality disorder, declare that they are in a secret alliance against you, and then COMPLAIN when people don't like it? -Amarkov ^babble 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, now Amarkov is falsely portraying my words also (though in this case not enough to constitute libel), as in "secret alliance against you" (in truth an only-semi-secret alliance, against all of their opponents), in "when people don't like it" (in truth, when said pseudoskeptics make deceptive attacks because of it), and in 'COMPLAIN' (in truth, making a report). GoodCop 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked GoodCop for 24 hours for violation of WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:3RR and WP:Only an idiot posts abusive tirades on the admins' noticeboard. Guy 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That last one new? About bloody time... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's good to know that my concerns aren't out-of-line. I think I will worry less about the possibility of COI in this case in the future. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking for an apology for GoodCop's attacks on me is a "deceptive tactic"?!? --Ronz 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:7T7 and move vandalism

Notice, I didn't link his name...

I think I reverted some complex move vandalism involving British West Indies. If the history of the talk page doesn't look right, feel free to delete and/or undelete pages. I think I moved it and then moved the redirect over it. I only blocked him for a hour, which block is probably now up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

An administrator has advised me to post my concerns here. I have been involved in an ongoing edit dispute in Selig Percy Amoils regarding verifiable information and style issues. I have discussed the issues with the other editor in Talk:Selig Percy Amoils and have requested second and third opinions in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Selig Percy Amoils, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Selig Percy Amoils. I have largely ignored insults from him, but he has recently began posting in articles in which I contribute to and just posted on my Talk page what I perceive to be a personal attack: User talk:AED/Archive 2#Wikipedia terrorism. Could you advise what my next step should be? Thanks again! -AED 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikitester (talk · contribs)

I have encountered this new user. His/her username gives me some concern about his/her motives. I left a welcome, and suggested that s/he pick another username. I recommend not blocking per {{UsernameBlocked}}: if s/he is here to "test the Wiki" it will be much easier to manage if s/he edits using this username! I will be going offline soon, and I would appreciate it if other admins can just keep an eye on it. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the block log first next time? I already blocked before you posted this. If you want to change that, its up to you. pschemp | talk 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppetry in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

Merchbow (talk · contribs) seems to be using Calsicol (talk · contribs) for the purposes of vote rigging at CFD see: [106] where Merchbow changes the signature after Calsicol replied by mistake on Merchbow's talk page. Concerning when Calsicol then turns up to vote on Merchbow's proposed deletion of Category:Anti-French people [107]. Tim! 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

the US Senate is vandalising the Donald Rumsfeld article!

• Here:

Donald Rumsfeld was fishing off the coast of Melbourne in 2002 when he came across a great white shark. The shark attempted to drag the entire boat under water, but Rumsfeld jumped into the water, killed the beast, and ate it raw. Thus, he has become a great white shark that can walk on land but uses the human appearance in order to avoid frightening children.

• And here and again here where they keep trying to add this image of a great white shark!

They're already on two warnings! Hysterical! :)  Glen  17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh shit, this just takes the cake! Buddy you have balls! Nice  Glen  17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not to encourage vandalism, but it's great to see somebody at the Senate has a sense of humour! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe from the usertalk page that it's the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Note the request here that the Foundation be notified immediately if this address is blocked. Newyorkbrad 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly Representatives... This is better than me issuing warnings to the Belgian Parliament! Shadow1 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Expect a "Free Editing For All" bill decreeing an end to blocks and bans on freely-editable websites to appear on the schedule when the next sitting starts. The representative who proposes it is probably our perp... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably some staffer either celebrating or drowning their sorrows... 68.39.174.238 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reported to Indian Head, Saskatchewan

User PhatD is continually vandalizing the page for Indian Head, Saskatchewan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head%2C_Saskatchewan Thanks for your attention to this matter. Headtale 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Firehose needed at Ascended Master

The saffron crowd and the snark patrol (I'm in the latter group) are going at it without approaching a consensus. - Richfife 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate is to esoteric for me. :) pschemp | talk 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty bitter content dispute, but a content dispute all the same. --InShaneee 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Misuly

This user linkspammed his site "Fantastic Reviews" over a number of author articles. Would be grateful if someone with the tools could roll-back his edits. CRCulver 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Second spam warning issued. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Query about WP:AUTO and WP:Harassment

Evidence has emerged that a user who is editting a biography page may actually be the person in question. When posted the question as to whether the user was the person in question, he demanded I remove it per WP:Harassment. Could I get some administrator opinions on this matter? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, ScienceApologist 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction: This is a misrepresentation. The above user (ScienceApologist) is attempting to rescue himself from a discussion of his own problematic editing behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, especially here. He has no evidence of the sort he claims, and in fact, it is not I but he who has a history of improper editing on the biography page in question. He is engaged in harassment for purposes of diversion. Thank you, Asmodeus 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus, knock it off. I've already told you you have a WP:AUTO problem and that SA didn't do anything wrong. JoshuaZ 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

See [108]. I have a problem with this username, I am wondering if it is at all founded. Yanksox 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm giving a username block. - crz crztalk 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Why? It's the name of a band, among other things. I oppose this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a misspelled name of a band actually. Note that name blocks can also be given for names that match those of a real-world organisation. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make him change it. I find it a little upsetting that you would have a problem with it. Pushing subjects like suicide under the carpet contribute to keeping it taboo, something that 'shouldn't be talked about'. It has been a previaling attitude of the past. I write as someone who works on the articles around this subject on WP. Anyway I think he has chosen it, however, as he likes the band of the same name. I think it would be unfair should he have to change it. Thanks --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amists (talk • contribs)

I say keep it. Why censor a username that isn't an insult to anyone directly and is probably just referencing the band. --AW 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The user name is in violation of the user name policy. Exploding Boy 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's borderline WP:U violation, though I imagine this is a reference to the band and not any statement of intention. Personally I don't think it is that big of a deal. That said, the user has crossed the line on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and probably deserves a cooling off block.--Isotope23 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is in reference to the band, then it's a username block anyway... --Rory096 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's second edit was a request for user name change, so s/he obviously shared these concerns, at least at some point. Accurizer 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is username blocking being applied in a non-uniform and inconsistent fashion?JoshuaZ 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, after a look at the guideline, I'd say it's a little broad and open to interpretation. Additionally, I agree that we should not block people for simply referring to certain things, such as violent or illegal activities. Would User:Rape_Counselor be blocked? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's just a reference to a band, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like the person is promoting suicide or anything like that. RobJ1981 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it maybe be a big deal to ask Crz to revert his hasty block then, at least for now? --Amists 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this guy's name is not offensive. An offensive name is something that includes profanity or racism or things like that, just because a name has the word "suicide" doesn't mean it should be indef blocked! I say let him keep it! And revert that block! --StonedChipmunk 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a reference to a band, it's disallowed as an infringement on their brand. Otherwise, it is completely inappropriate due to reference to suicide. Yes, Murderous Rage, Impulse to Rape, and Misogynistic Boor are all inappropriate for the same reason - they bring the project to disrepute. However, in the face of opposition, I will revert myself. - crz crztalk 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For anyone keeping score, Sean Black blocked him for being a troll. Yanksox 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's probably for the best. In his defense, however, I feel I need to point out that it's not completely incorrect to call me an asshole. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the contribs, this user is not a troll. Thanks to the admins for providing an indefinite block and forcing out a diligent and useful member of wikipedia with a consistent history of enforcing the policies here and working against vandalism for one vio of NPA and possibly one borderline infringement of CIVIL. So wise, and so so just. --Amists 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's relocated to a new username; seems to be a good solution to the problem. Not that I'm an admin or anything, but I looked at his contribs, and he seems to be doing a decent job of RC patrol and other work; the flareup looks to have been generated by what might just be confusion over the username complaints. Hopefully this sorts the situation out. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: look deeper into contribs next time. stupid. Considering the below, yeah, he does seem to have confrontational issues sometimes. I don't think it's unredeemable, however, and with the move to a less concerning username (User:Ring modulator), hopefully he can moderate that aspect. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there have been problems with this user. Some of his more troubling edits: personal commentary, trolling, incivility, user page vandalism, user talk vandalism, biting, trolling, not to mention my own personal encounter when I confronted him about placing inappropriate indefblock messages on talk pages; his unapologetic reply, and subsequent trolling on my talk page. The block was appropriate and it would be a good idea to keep an eye on his new account. Accurizer 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

194.144.111.210

Please block 194.144.111.210. This user to wage edit war, all users reverted this edition [109]. This user have many caution in discussion [110]. PS. WP:3RR. LUCPOL 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Many % edits from this user is editwars or 3RR. See: [111] - all 17 editions --> 13! editions is edit war or/and 3RR. LUCPOL 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an onlooker (talk · contribs)

This user has created a numerous new accounts: Vegetarian Friend (talk · contribs), Vegetables76 (talk · contribs), Veggies for life (talk · contribs), and Vegetarian Friend (talk · contribs) to continually dodge the 3RR rule and revert changes I've made (and properly sourced) on the Vegetarianism article (sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.) This user has a history of sockpuppet use [112] to circumvent policy and avoid scrutiny from other editors. The user has also engaged in making uncivil remarks to both myself and Davidjk in the process. Note that one of the users current puppets AndyCanada was just recently blocked for violation of the 3RR rule. Thanks. Yankees76 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked all the socks I can find, leaving the puppeteer (User:Messenger2010) unblocked, but perhaps a ban on this user would be appropriate. So what's the next step? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Activity by banned user

User:Irismeister has apparently created a sock, User:Eerie is meister, which I have blocked indefinitely. I'm not familiar with his case; does his one-year ban "reset" each time he breaks it? If so, the ban clock should be reset. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's blocked indefinitely due to legal threats. See his user talk page for more information. 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of Business

User:Mancation is using the definition of the word mancation to promote himself and his business.

UNFONE problems

I just received the following email:

Hello, I am emailing you just to mention something. My name is Daniel Rigby. I happen to be the topic of the article I mentioned in my subject (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Rigby>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Rigby). I just want to mention a few things. I, along with Charles Phllips (bobsfoot, UNFONE, [and additional sock puppets he created following the format of UNF#]) work for the University of North Florida. I would prefer it if you would revert the topic link and the contents of the article to its state before Charles edited them. I can do the version myself, but I can’t change the topic I believe. I already reverted on of the topics Charles edited before (article on metrosexual, if you look in the history, you will notice the edits by bobsfoot [Charles] and the subsequent suspension of his account). You will also notice that the image used in the edit of metrosexual is the same image used in the topic he made about me under Daniel Rigby. The photo itself is a photo shopped image of Mark Smith, a third coworker of ours. Finally, you should be able match the ips of UNFONE to the same as those used by bobsfoot to edit the metrosexual entry (further proof the UNFONE account is a sock puppet) since Charles tends to use the same computer at work to vandalize wikipedia. Anyway, I usually don’t care enough to do anything about it, but I’d prefer an entirely bogus entry (Yes he made up everything in that article) with my name on it not stay on wikipedia. While Charles may not have much faith in wikipedia I do, and I would prefer it stay a good source of correct information (I use it all the time). Thanks for your time.

Looks like sock and vandal problems... Grutness...wha? 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Punch-up brewing at CFD

A bucket of cold water needs to be hurled at various editors of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Female life peers - claims and counterclaims of vote deletion and vandalism; looks like this needs watching. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As one of the protagonists, I can point out that we have even had user:nonomy ppuring out barrages of personal abuse, and making two attempts to move ALL of the oppose votes off to a separate CFD (see this diff for one instance).

The whole CFD should in any case have been closed at the outset as an abuse of the CFD process, because it seeks to strike out a category contrary to existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep looking over that diff, but I don't see a single removal of a keep vote. Grouse 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I got the wrong diff :(

Anyway, at 17:50, 9 November 2006 here's the votes before Nonomy's restructuring: 3 deletes, 4 keeps

... and at 20:15, 9 November 2006 here's the votes after nonomy has been at work: 3 deletes, no keeps (all the keeps have been moved off to a separate CFD, below).

That's aside from the current state of the CFD, hich has split out the male-only categories, and kept the female-only ones. The vore-deleting nominator claims that it is bad faith to remove a male-only gendered category, but a great idea to remove a female-only one.

How often do we have to go through all this? The only gendered categories that I know of comply with Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, but there is a hard core of dissidents who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the guidelines and press CFDs on a regular basis This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I there see votes by User:Radiant! and User:Calsicol at 9:44 and 13:54 UTC. Then at 15:24 UTC you stick eight new categories above their votes, which makes it appear that they voted for these eight categories as well. I see your point about frustrating the intent of the keep votes, but it appears you did the same with delete votes.

• Comment that's an inherent problem with incomplete partisan nominations such as this one. :( The appropriate action would be to message the contributos concerned and point oit that the nonination has been broadened to include other relevant categories which should have been included at the outset. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( " - Just a guess, but that sounds to me like that could be considered consensus. And if we add in all the other gender-based discussions (such as the recent deletion of all the actress categories, and so on), it really would appear to be so. In any case, this discussion would appear to be better served on CfD. Though I am troubled by another case of BrownHairedGirl modifying a nomination to suit her preferences, rather than making suggestions and and attempting to discuss in order to come to consensus. See the "see also" below for what I'm referring to. - jc37 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(sigh)I should have written "the third CFD in a few months seeking to to remove a women legislators in the UK category". The fact that a few partisan males repeatedly push a contentious POV rejected by existing Wikipedia guidelines and by the cross-party consensus in Parliament itself is not evidence of a consensus on wikipedia: no CFD has been closed with a consensus to delete these categoris. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you people need a time-out. Grouse 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I can see that you did not give me the wrong diff, but I did not understand it until your recent explanation. Grouse 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the bucket of cold water. I took a look, and was so dismayed by the state of the discussion that I was unable to vote in any other way than "Be nice?" --Masamage 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One CFD withdrawn needs closing, other CFDs apparent bad faith by User:Jc37, also on this page, for a possibly related situation. - jc37 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this edit summary is going to help.... Newyorkbrad 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on User talk:Nonomy re: the above diff. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of that message, but I disagree that such a strong warning is warranted; calling someone "hypocritical" and "a shameless politician" is overly robust and incivil, but not in any way grounds for an indefinite block (as threatened) unless part of a pattern of abusive behaviour demonstrated repeatedly. (Note for the record that I am myself involved in a completely separate and unrelated discussion with BHG where her actions have been entirely reasonable and commendable, and which is not related to this CfD debate, in which I have no interest (and, in fairness, only an imperfect understanding)). It does very much strike me however that there are two sides to this particular story, and that some naughtyness may well have gone on on both sides. Fundamentally however, there is no excuse for incivility. That's my 2p. Badgerpatrol 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

I think this user might be Willy on Wheels, and as such needs to be blocked indefinitely. Check his contributions. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Red link~ --Masamage 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the username comes up a redlink means that there is no userpage; it doesn't necessarily mean there is no corresponding user. In any event, Steel359 has already blocked indef. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course. My mistake. --Masamage 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem; I've made the same mistake. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the original WoW is even around anymore; "on wheels" has pretty much become a stock phrase for general vandals. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have conclusive proof that Willy on wheels has in fact recently died.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Which one? Grandmasterka 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Yannakis

I first noticed him when he redirected Macedonians (ethnic group) to the article for Bulgarians, which was the first edit on the account. He's now gone on to remove information from myriad articles without making any comments on the Talk page. Still no productive edits from the username. When I put the vw tag on his Talk page, he accused me of being the vandal. CRCulver 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He's now reverting my reverts which had return the articles to the earlier, consensus version. His edit commentaries are aping mine. CRCulver 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's just removing words in languages other than English, which is fairly standard procedure. Instead of shouting vandal at eachother, you should discuss whether or not those place-name translations add value to the articles they're in.

Yannakis, please do not remove this section. Whether or not it's the best way to do things, it is definitely not vandalism.--Masamage 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked. Although it's possible he's acting in good faith somehow, so I've asked him to explain himself. -- Steel 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he most likely is. A lot of articles start with "Someword (blah in French, blorp in Spanish, blumph in German)," which is not something we're supposed to do in the English-language WP without very good reason which is pointed out within the article.

I really, really hate to see people get so excited about catching someone else doing something wrong that they completely skip over the "discuss the issue" step.

Incidentally, CRCulver, you're at three reverts for the day on at least one of those, so be careful that you don't get blocked too. --Masamage 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The guy was an obvious sockpuppet of some banned user, probably User:Mywayyy, like several others that have been plaguing these articles recently. And the matter of what foreign names to include in these articles has been discussed extensively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

'Kay. --Masamage 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel

Let me be clear: I'm not sure he requires a block yet, although I have made several attempts over the last few weeks to explain to this user how Wikipedia operates and how he is expected to participate. However, I'm hesitant to start with a long drawn-out RfC, mediation cabal, or ArbCom case because I think he honestly believes that he is following policy, and a short sharp shock to show him that what he is doing is indeed in violation of community norms may be sufficient to get him to change his ways. That said:

About a week ago, I accepted an AMA case between User:Yajaec and User:Folken de Fanel. The two users were involved in a content dispute regarding the Saint Seiya and Gemini Saga articles. As an advocae for Yajaec, I contacted Folken de Fanel and requested that, until a community consensus could be reached regarding their dispute, they both agree to stop editing the article. Yajaec had already agreed to do that (his agreement to do so and article history which shows that he abided by that).

Folken de Fanel then proceeded to post on the Advocacy Case discussion area explaining his side of the story. He also made a comment ("Without these 2 elements, I won't let him edit." - diff showing comment) which led me to be believe that he might be claiming ownership of the articles in question, in violation of WP:OWN. He also accused Yajaec of "vandalism" for good-faith edits which Folken de Fanel believed to be containing false information.

After this, Yajaec, with my assistance, filed an RfC to request community input to solve the content dispute. Folken de Fanel claimed that it was "unnecessary", and asserted that he had proved his case and so there was no need to seek a consensus.

Over the next week, I posted a series of comments on Folken de Fanel's talk page explaining to him how Wikipedia works, how disputes over content are resolved, and what is and is not "vandalism". I repeated this several times--and others have told me, informally, that I was clear and concise and correct in my points. Folken de Fanel, in his responses on User talk:Kmweber#dispute over Saint Seiya merely reiterated his initial position and continued to refer to Yajaec as a "POV-pushing vandal" despite his clear good-faith actions to resolve the dispute properly, with community consensus. In my final two comments on his talk pages, I cited the specific policies he was violating and asked him to please stop, and pointed out that he could be blocked if he persists--in his last message, in which he requested that I contact him no further concerning this matter (a request I intend to honor), in addition to repeating the same assertions he claimed that my warnings that he may be subject to a block constituted "threats" and "personal attacks".

Anyway, like I said above I'm not sure a block is in order--perhaps someone could do a better job than I in explaining his errors and misunderstandings to him; on the other hand, as he honestly believes that what he is doing is in accord with Wikipedia policies and community norms, perhaps a "short sharp shock" will show him that he is not more than any argument could. Kurt Weber 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Vader99

This user has vandalized the Xbox 360 and Wii pages several times. I don't think this user had contributed anything positive to Wikipedia. There were multiple warnings on the user's talk page. Scepia 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked: for 24 hours. semper fi — Moe 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Request removal of inappropriate edit

Could an administrator remove this edit - [113] - from the edit history for Randy Forbes? The edit is blank, but the description is absolutely horrible. Thanks. BigDT 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done by Naconkantari @ 06:31, November 10, 2006. [114] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! BigDT 17:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Emir214

Not quite sure what to do with this user, apparently leaving wikipedia. Had his page deleted, he recreated it with this text:

This username is free.

You may contact me if you want it.

I'd suggest an indef-block of the account, we shouldn't let this happen. – Chacor 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try emailing him about it first? --Masamage 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User has now speedy-tagged his usertalk page with "I have archived my talk page. Please delete it. But do not delete my user page. I recreated it for someone who wants to use my username. - Emir214 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)" – Chacor 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just leave it guys, can't image we'll be having a huge rush on Emir214 requests... have we even been through 1-213 yet? ;)  Glen  08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Anyways, I don't know if I like this idea. Users are often judged based on their past contributions (giving leniency to users who have just recently become trolls, for example). Also, deleting the usertalk should be out of the question, as the links to the archives are the only access to them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a guideline someplace about not sharing your username or transfering it to anyone else, but I can't find it now. --Masamage 08:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since I don't want to face another problem here, please revert my user page to contain all my archives instead. - Emir214 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for lock on content of Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah

Hi. There is an AfD occurring for this article (see AfD/Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah). After the AfD started, a user,User:Pmanderson, deleted a vast majority of the article's contents citing it wasn't sourced. Not only did I think this was inappropriate, but I did what we all should do, after restoring those contents I started improving the article and added many references/sources (in this case they are actual US Patents that the article was claiming the subject created). User:Pmanderson came back and deleted the vast majority of the article again, even with the new references/sources. In doing so User Pmanderson noted "remove unsourced preposterous trash". This attack on the editors work seems to violate WP:NPA. But what I'm requesting here is that the article be locked from most of it getting deleted. Here is the article before the deletion -->[115], and here it is after -->[116]. I've restored it again, but I think I need help in preserving it. Would somebody be interested in helping? Thank you for reading. --Oakshade 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted per Oakshade's discovery. El_C 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I discovered the copywrite issue after the initial posting here. While I think it was wrong of the user to delete most of the article (for reasons that had nothing to do with copywrite violations), the point seems moot after the new discovery. Thanks for looking into this. --Oakshade 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Koavf (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely

Koavf has managed to rack up eight distinct blocks for 3RR, and 2 more for other disruptive behavior(block log). Note also edits like this.. I just extended his latest 3RR block to idefinite, as I think the community's patience is likely exhausted by now. He has had many opportunities to mend his ways. Having recently returned from a week-long block, he started edit warring again almost immediately. His behavior is unmodified despite the volume of blocks he has received. Of course, I put this possibly-controversial action up for review. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no note on his User or User_talk page? - Francis Tyers · 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He has lots of warnings on his Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the lack of note on his talk page regarding his indefinite block. A note has subsequently been added. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much possibility of recovery here. While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I don't think he has the temperament for editing here. I'm going to endorse this action, though sadly. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, harsher than we usually are. But then perhaps we are usually too soft. Endorse with the proviso that we put a note on his talk page indicating that he will be considered for a 'last chance' if he indicates that he 'gets it' undertakes to behave.--Doc^g 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that a long block of some sort is in order. Not sure if indefinite is needed, just yet (I'm not too familiar with the situation), but the long-term disruption and failure to learn from past transgressions is pretty worrisome. Luna Santin 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he deserves an indefinite block, but I think that some kind of length (maybe 3-6 month block) with the option of a "last chance" before indefinite would be appropriate. He has been a useful editor, and the disruption comes from edit warring rather than vandalism. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing politics in pro wrestling 2

I reported this earlier here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#Playing_politics_in_pro_wrestling

I was going to report this as a 3RR violation, but this hasn't occurred within a 24 hour period.

Three times now, an anonymous IP based in Adelaide with the one ISP has attempted to - IMO - push a POV by placing the promotion EPW AKA NWA Pro above all the others, in an attempt to gain the websites listed publicity. I originally had it in order of size, but it was suggested to me that alphabetical order would be better. I certainly agree that it is the best order to give a neutral POV. But that wasn't enough for this person. The IP's are;

219.90.231.145 - 219.90.230.143 - 219.90.187.203

It is also possible that this person knows me and is trying to upset me. He isn't because I know the Wikipedia rules are on my side because this act is not only against the NPOV rules, but it also amounts to subtle advertising, which is also not permitted. I'm not keen on having to revert these actions without some back up to control this politically motivated individual. Adelaide is a hotbed for this sort of BS. Curse of Fenric 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've slapped a BV warning on the talk page of all three IP's. Hopefully that will help. Let me know if that was the wrong way to handle this issue. Curse of Fenric 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive move warring

User:Tekleni unleashed a mind-boggling move war over List of unrecognized countries which he frivolously moves to self-invented POV titles, such as List of separatist regimes. Then he made a bad-faith edit to keep the article from being moved back. I suggest the article should be restored to its traditional name and move-protected. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This move made in a bad faith attempt to force the POV without consensus being reached at talk needs reverted as per the ArbCom ruling about such dirty trick moves with addition of artificial history. ArbCom ruled on that in AndriyK case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves.)

Tekleni (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and MariusM (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (see this move of the same article earlier today) should be warned in strongest possible terms (perhaps blocked) for bad faith multiple times moving of the article especially the provocative addition of history.

Just today, MariusM noved the article once and Tekleni moved this article twice and when his first move against concensus was reverted and it was explained that unilateral moves are not to allowed. [He moved the article again to an inflammatory name and added artificial history to the move AndriyK style! --Irpen 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the dirty-salted redirect and move-protected at original title. All parties, please take this to a regular WP:RM debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Necronudist

User:Necronudist has been acting rude and uncivil against several users lately, as well as not caring about other policies either, but as I have been involved in some of the discussions myself, I prefer to let another admin solve this. It has been going on for a pretty long time now, on and off. The first "conflict" I can remember can be found here (example edits [117] [118] [119]) and he has since continued to be rude against other users, or has shown a complete lack of understanding of policies and their function (for example [120] [121]).

The conflict has then erupted during the last week. See this discussion where the user recommends another user to break WP:3RR because he thinks the policy, along with WP:NN and WP:NPOV, are "bad ideas", and the latest conflict in this discussion, specifically rudeness and lack of care for policies (example edits: [122] [123] [124] [125]) I have warned him and told him to stop several times during the discussion ([126] [127] [128]), but nothing changed, and thus I gave a final warning ([129]), after which he answered with this, saying he would go away and he has also edited his userpage ([130]) to show that. But since he's had a statement on his userpage for long ([131]) that he was to quit editing Wikipedia on May 23 earlier this year, I don't really know how serious he is this time.

Actions? – Elisson • T • C • 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried, my friend, but I'm "too free" to be part of this moneypedia. However, you forgot to write that I've linked to wikitruth that is considered an high crime here in Jimbopedia. And, please note, I've never offended anyone, just spoken frankly. I didn't quit before because I wanted to keep up to date some pages I created or heavily edited, but this time I'll seriously quit, me and my future projects. Be sure. I'm not a drama queen like someone wrote. You are a good person Elisson, maybe one day you'll notice. --82.61.59.136 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)

P.S.: Maybe you'd better say that I've also done something positive here, like reverting vandalism and creatin' unique and hard-working pages. You know, just to say who you are tryin' to ban.

Already implied in one of my warning edits linked to above (this one, to be specific: [132]). And making good contributions does still not allow anyone to be uncivil or break policies. I'd like to have you at the project considering your good sides, but seeing you fail—and judging by how you act, you do it on purpose—to adhere to the rules over and over again, I do not longer believe that the sum of your contributions add to the betterness of Wikipedia. – Elisson • T • C • 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand, there's no problem for me. You (wikipedians) have lost a football researcher (hobby) and an historian (studies & job) because of a pair of stupid rules. Sure I'm not the first, and not the last. Let's think about this. Wikipedia isn't God (is there a policy like this? :-), it fails sometimes, maybe you (wikipedians) should try to improve it. --82.61.59.136 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudis)

Imagine a wikipedia without rules. It's a shame you've been banned, but it's for the protection of the community. Wikipedia functions as a society and an acceptance of the rules of the society are required. Without those rules (even stupid ones), whatever they may be, the society will collapse... and no one user is worth such a collapse.

I find your attitude here slightly insulting as well. Moneypedia? Wikimedia has refused buyout offers, runs no advertisements, and is one of the largest collections of free content on the planet.

If you don't accept the laws of the land, thats fine. But you can't blame us when you leave. ---J.S (t|c) 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Sockpuppet block

Grazon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now a confirmed puppet-master. I'd like to request a block of his puppet Devilmaycares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If a admin wishes to slosh though a bunch of diffs you'll see the disruptive editing patterns at a RFC I filed. I think there's ample reason to long-term block the main account too, but I'll leave that to the judgement of those who aren't involved. ---J.S (t|c) 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User refusing to name his sources

Long-time problem user Deucalionite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (with a history of unsourced articles, plagiarism, fringe POV pushing, and several long 3RR blocks) is back to his old ways. Now he's flat out refusing to name the sources he used for writing his latest article, Talk:Henriette Mertz. I have a negative history with this user and would rather not want to take administrative action myself. Can someone look into the case please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to prod this article for the time being; we can't differentiate between statements with an 'unknown' source and those with no source at all. --InShaneee 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Prod removed by someone, with a note on the talk page of the article. Your call if you want to take it to AfD... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict with Daniel). I apologize, InShanee, I didn't realize the Prod was new when I removed it, but I'm going to leave the prod off -- IMHO, the existence of the books is verifiable by the books themselves, or by WorldCat if you prefer a secondary source, and Google books returns enough hits to assure me of notability. If someone wanted to delete all the unverified info and stubbify (or, better yet, find an obituary and replace with verified info), that would be fine with me, but I don't think PROD is right. Thanks, and sorry for stepping on your toes, TheronJ 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Alternately, if this user is such a well-known plagiarist that an admin feels comfortable reverting all of his unsourced edits, I'll be happy to stubbify the article myself down to what I can verify. Let me know, TheronJ 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Stubbify sounds good for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cut down to one sentence until sourced. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute with Naradasupreme over an anonymous user page

A while ago, I came across an archived user page that had been blanked by Naradasupreme (talk · contribs), but it belongs to 24.148.67.72. I have made repeated calls [133] [134] [135] and so have other users [136] [137] to get a proper explanation for the actions.

My reverts on the anonymous page have been claimed as vandalism by this user repeatedly. I had made a request to have this investigated, but it appears that it has gone nowhere and now I have decided to approach this to you all.

A couple of things here that I should note:

• 24.148.67.72 may be also both Oldschoolfreak and Naradasupreme and I suspect that one of them could be a sock puppet account.
• User talk:Naradasupreme/Archive/one shows that has been warned months ago about blanking this page. He claims that the issue had resolved a week ago at that time.

In all honesty, I just want a simple explanation, but it is getting to the point where I feel that there needs to be some sort of third party resolution here. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the request that he explains himself here. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tags & incivility issues

Deathrocker (talk · contribs) is keeping on removing {{Replaceable fair use}} tags from Image:Bojinov.jpg, Image:59040.jpg, Image:LeccePromoShot.jpg. In the beginning, his removals had personal attacks as edit summaries ( "clown added inapropriate tag to image": [138] [139]; "removing vandalism": [140]). I warned him against removing the tags, suggesting him to insert the appropriate {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag ([141]); I warned him against using personal attacks ([142]), with him answering "moron spammed my talkpage" ([143]); he removed the tags agains, I warned him again against tag removal ([144]); he reverted again, leaving a message in the images talk pages (e.g. [145]) in which he clearly shows not to understand WP:FU.

My questions are: is there a way to oblige him not to remove the tags? Is there a way to stop him from posting uncivil edits and edits summaries? Is there a way to settle such blatantly un-collaborative and disruptive behaviour, without going through the whole WP:DR process?--Panarjedde 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of such tags is vandalism, and he can be blocked if he continues. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The images already had apropriate licensing, Panarjedde insists on putting inapropriate tags on the images because he doesn't like the club which the players are associated with. The tag he placed on the images has no purpose and doesn't belong there. - Deathrocker 01:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Per the report at WP:PAIN Deathrocker has been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unknown source of vandalism?

Does anyone else see a strange vandalism on Talk:Coat of arms of Nagorno-Karabakh ? I've checked the template included there, but can't see where that strange text is coming from! 68.39.174.238 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I could not find the source, since I ended up at a weird template, but it's fixed now. Why did you need an admin? -Amarkov ^babble 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be okay now; thanks for bringing this to our attention, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I got it. That Wikiproject banner uses Template:Namespace prefix of associated page. If you look at the talk page of that, it says: "If used on a Talk page, it calls {{PTalk}}". The vandalism was to Template:PTalk. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ARGH! Thanx dude. While templates are the greatest things every, stuff like that is infuriating since it's so hard to track down the origin thereof. Anyway, it was vandalism and I couldn't fix it myself, so I figured this was the best place for it. 68.39.174.238 01:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic/Racial comments by User:Street Scholar

User:Street Scholar, as part of a verbal tirade against other users with whom he's involved in an arbcomm case, made a very objectionable racial/ethnic comment against the Bengali people in Talk:Martial Race. Wikipedia is not a place for hate speech, and such bigotry. I have requested the user to refrain from making such hateful comments, however, he subsequently has continued his verbal tirade against certain racial/ethnic groups.

Of any place, maintaining a healthy atmosphere at an encyclopedia is of supreme importance. I denounce the derogatory comments against Bengalis (or any other ethnic groups) made by User:Street Scholar, and request other administrators to take appropriate actions. Thank you. --Ragib 02:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy has been carrying on like this for months. His justification is that under "his culture" remarks that degrade women in sometimes particularly offensive manner are OK, and thus allowed on wikipedia because of it policy of respecting all beliefs. Unfortunately he doesn't understand (more like refuses to accept) that this is a two-way street and he himself does not show respect for other cultures. It is OK to have beliefs, they should be respected, but that doesn't give anyone the right to push them onto others particularly when they are offensive to otherss. Not just rude, but a hypocrtite. I suggest often he is just trying to get a reaction. This user has been discussed here before - i know this is about women, but it illustrates his double standards:

[146], [147], vandalism to express hate?: [148], charming: [149], [150], [151]. --Merbabu 04:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

that guy with a grudge against Chuq and Longhair

So far, all the IPs used by the Chuq/Longhair vandal (this guy) have been listed as open proxies at [152], so I've been reblocking for 6 months. Thatcher131 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this one 59.167.61.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks legit. Maybe his home IP? Thatcher131 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Another grudge? Must be my lucky month. :) -- Longhair\^talk 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So sorry. Looks like this is the guy who has been adding unverified stuff to Internode Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Simon Hackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His home ISP appears to be Internode in Adeliade. Every non-internode IP he has used so far has turned up on at least one open proxy blacklist. I recommend blocking on sight any non-Aussie IP he uses for a minimum of a month. Thatcher131 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what you think. My valid contributions to Internode_Systems were just being deleted for lame reasons. My contributions were referenced. No discussion was entered into regarding changing or removing parts of my contribution. The entire contribution to the article was reverted and then the page was protected. By the way, unsecured wireless and default admin router passwords are great. Regards the Chuq/Longhair vandal 208.101.10.54 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There's discussion at User_talk:ScottDavis, Talk:Internode Systems and Talk:Simon Hackett but you've chosen to ignore most of it. Besides, it's kind of difficult to let you know others are trying to discuss these edits with you if you choose to remain anonymous and make little use of talk pages. -- Longhair\^talk 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that "discussion" as you call it is so biased against the contributions it can't be taken seriously. Clearly aggressive wording in my opinion which must be the Internode Fanboi coming out in you. Regards the Chuq/Longhair vandal 69.64.49.130 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't give one hoot about Internode. I care about reliable sources of information however... -- Longhair\^talk 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure sure. Can you please explain to me then how the magazine article and the ISP's own DSLAM rollout page I referenced was unreliable? The managing director stated the goal was to complete 25% of the exchanges in the timeframe of 3-4 months that were released in the magazine article. It has now been 5 months and they have only completed 11%. It is fact. How is that unreliable????????????????? Chug/Longhair Vandal 66.79.168.59 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once you call off your army of anonymous vandals and quit fiddling with the userpages of the editors involved in the debate, I may begin to take you a little more seriously. We don't cower to brute force insertion of your point of view here sorry. -- Longhair\^talk 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What's this then? Are you going to answer the question about "unreliable" sources? Or are you just going to delete my responses as you have started to because you can't handle it? Chug/Longhair Vandal 67.159.5.85 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The APC article is fine as a reference, but it doesn't back up the point of view you're trying to insert. See Thatcher131's comments below. I dislike repeating solid information to those who refuse to read it. -- Longhair\^talk 05:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are inappropriate because you intend them to personally attack Mr. Hackett for the way he runs his company and because the only source is some kind of blog or internet forum. Maybe if you had a newspaper article or something, and could write it in a neutral tone presenting just the facts, you might get a better reception. Thatcher131 03:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a load of crap. There were no personal attacks in my contributions. I did however change my contribution to a more accurate and referenced piece. For instance I added an article regarding the proposed rollout of services and expected timeframe. I then had a look at the ISP's rollout page and found that they hadn't even completed half of what they had aimed to do in the article. How is that a personal attack? It's factual information about the rollout being behind schedule. I think the deletions are a reflection of bias. Chug/Longhair vandal 72.36.195.155 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I've never had a vandal named after me before. I'm honoured. Longhair and Thatcher131 have pretty much said all that needs to be said here. To answer the vandal: The actual content isn't the big problem, although it was obviously biased, it isn't the reason for the blocks - it was the 3RR breakage and refusal to discuss changes on talk pages first. The evasion of blocks, the user page vandalism and Admin's noticeboard vandalism, the use of open proxies, and the admitted use of an open access point without the owners permission - isn't really helping your cause at all. -- Chuq 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's laughable. The evasion of blocks, the user page vandalism and Admin's noticeboard vandalism, the use of open proxies and the open access point use is a direct result of overmoderation of Wikipedia. How about before deleting someones contribution and banning them, you consider the article that was submitted and suggest rewording or removal of parts of it, instead of flatly removing the entire thing and protecting the page so no one can change it. Love the Chuq/Longhair Vandal 193.196.41.38 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When you choose to play outside the rules, protection is a means to stop your behaviour. Edit warring isn't within the rules here in case you hadn't realised, and ignoring discussion at talk pages doesn't rate that highly either. It took several days for protection to be enabled, far longer than anyone has to tolerate the nonsense that caused it. -- Longhair\^talk 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok look here we go.......it's the Chuq/Longhair brigade again.....give me a break! The reason I was banned by 3RR was because you were removing the edits completely, no discussion except "anti-vandalism" rant. You failed to even acknowledge that the article contribution that was submitted was correct, it just didn't wash with your own personal preferences. Hence that's why I resubmitted. Chuq/Longhair Vandal 200.61.58.2 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The reason you were blocked under WP:3RR was because you edit warred, and failed to discuss the matter. -- Longhair\^talk 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right....at least I acknowledge that both sides have done wrong here. Both yourself and Chuq are still to pigheaded to acknowledge that. Love Mr CLV. 75.126.32.98 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were removed by at least three distinct editors, with explanations in the edit comments. This demonstrates the consensus that this content was not wanted in that form. There were also comments and explanations on User talk:59.167.63.34, User_talk:ScottDavis, Talk:Internode Systems and Talk:Simon Hackett. You did not respond to any of these requests to discuss, except to agree that ADSL2+ did not belong on Simon Hackett. It was clearly only a matter of time before you were blocked for 3RR (Chuq beat me to it by about 10 minutes I think). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again the "talk" was more in line with "you are just a complaining customer". If I was a "complaining customer", why would I even bother? I'd just switch ISP's. I like Internode I honestly do, however there rollout is not progressing as they hoped(possibly for reasons outside of their control). It is fact however, demonstrated by the magazine article and the Internode DSLAM rollout page. C.L.V. 66.79.168.59 06:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfocused (talk · contribs) - bad faith assumptions, possible WP:POINT

Last night, I closed three school AFDs as deletes. Since then, I have repeatedly been accused of "abuse of power" by Unfocused, and giving "opinionated" close statements instead of closing the debates based on straight votes (AFD is not a vote). Despite being instructed by another user (as well as myself) to go to deletion review, he/she has continued to insist that he/she is right to go through the dispute resolution process, as if this were a content or behavioral dispute, and he absolutely refuses to go to DRV. Even after I amended my statements to not appear opinionated (and they weren't in the first place), Unfocused accused me of trying to cover up my original statements - if I wanted to do that, I would have deleted the AFDs, and restored all edits except the one that contained my original statement. He/she has since reverted the edits twice. Something may need to be done, as this user has a history of assuming bad faith. --Coredesat 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have reverted your post-closing changes to the AFD closing statement twice mistakenly thinking that you should't be allowed to clarify or ammend the closing statment, and then stopped that, and left two confrontational but not hostile comments on your talk page. Those are not great behavior, but he stopped soon enough that it doesn't seem really disruptive. Most of the flames for the last several hours seem to be limited to a nice toasty discussion on his talk page... which you and all the other editors can just walk away from. I think that someone has to really go out of their way to justify an abuse claim for disruption or the like for an ongoing discussion limited to their own talk page. I think he's wrong on whether it's ok for you to ammend the closing comment; if he keeps the ongoing argument on his talk page, is that causing you any problems? If it bothers you, walk away and ignore him... No need to keep arguing with him there and feeding the unhappyness flames. If he comes out and bothers you on your talk page or elsewhere a lot more, that's a different story. Georgewilliamherbert 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You realise that doing that will just attract claims of ignorance and covering up? – Chacor 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go on and do just that (walk away). Thanks. --Coredesat 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, if he comes out swinging into other pages, particularly if he's argumentatively or uncivily crying coverup, then that's disruptive and abusive, and I don't think Core will have much problem getting an uninvolved admin to block briefly. If he goes to DRV civily that's per procedure. If he keeps fuming about it on his talk page, then it's unfortunate but self-contained, and there's no reason to push the issue there with him. Coredesat, hopefully you just disengaging works. Hopefully he calms down overnight and lets it drop or goes to DRV properly. I left him a note trying to get him to tone it down a bit. Georgewilliamherbert 03:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did the DRV for him [153] Let the whining start in the appropriate place. SchmuckyTheCat 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)