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:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

Minutes after I add Category:Kurdish inhabited region to a half dozen articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], User:Cool Cat nominates the category for deletion.

This is confusing, because Cool Cat contacted me via IRC to get me to create just such a category. Unless I'm misrembering (I _am_ getting old, you know ;-) this. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? It seems that his objection is not in the category's existence but in its use. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region

User:Cool Cat has a history of #POV editing, and has been enjoined from disruptively editing articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds.

He has vociferously sought the deletion of all categories related to Kurds:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 17#Category:Kurdistan
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 3#Category:Kurdistan

plus the current votes:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6#Category:Kurdish cities

During the second CFD for Category:Kurdistan he stated: I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me.

Category:Kurdish inhabited region was created by User:Ed Poor as part of discussion on Category talk:Kurdistan where User:Cool Cat has been adamantly opposed to all efforts to establish consensus on usage of this category. User:Francs2000, whom User:Cool Cat asked to comment, ended up telling him that you need to change your attitude.

I agree, he needs to change his attitude. --Moby 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree entirely with Moby's summary. Cool Cat's disruptions do it hard to write articles about anythings related to Kurds. And it is indeed not an extenuating circumstance that user themselve stated, as quoted above, that they intended to sabotage the Category:Kurdistan, as it during the debate for its deletion was clear that it would stay. I hope some action will be taken, since the alternative seems to be continuing of disruptive edit wars. Bertilvidet 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom verdict which you've posted above says that he should be blocked for up to 3 days if he engages edits disruptively in Kurdish related areas. We've got several people saying he has done so, therefore I block 2 days. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position here, Cool Cat invited me into the discussion claiming that he was having POV issues with Kurdistan related articles, implying that he had received death threats from other users as a result of the discussion getting heated (see here). I got involved and made some progress with the other users in getting some agreement over the inclusion of Category:Kurdistan in articles, and this I believe has led to some of the sub-categories such as those listed above being created. I have since stepped back a bit due largely to real life events. I will say that although Cool Cat had some valid points in his arguements against the inclusion of material in articles about the disputed region, the way he went about making his point was unnecessarily aggressive, in my opinion. I also stand by telling him that he needs to change his opinion, after he stated (and I paraphrase) that he would be unable to negotiate a consensus on certain subject areas. -- Francs2000 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the comments you're referring to as death threats were targeting you (for reasons I have no clue about) and had nothing to do with User:Cool Cat or anyone else involved in the Kurdish categorization discussions; I certainly made no such threats. And thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. As Cool Cat's mentor I'm banning him from editing articles, templates and categories related to the kurds. He may still edit related discussion pages. This ban is initially to run for one week, to be made permanent subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ban includes creation or nomination for deletion. See the announcement on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, too! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• If this is to be kept it should be called Kurdish inhabited regions as per the naming policy to use plurals in categories. How long was this ban on Kurdish related articles for Coolcat? (Mgm - not logged in) - 131.211.210.16 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of plural makes sense to me, I'll suggest it on the CFD. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a copy of a message I posted to Tony Sidaway:

While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (which is in my opinion even more disruptive -- bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?

I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The nomination of Category:Kurdish inhabited region was the action that prompted me to start this discussion here, but the disruption has been on-going on pages such as Category talk:Kurdistan and Talk:Batman, Turkey for some time. He has removed Category:Kurdistan from many article (awhile ago...) and has been rather clear about his intent to oppose all efforts at categorizing Kurdish articles. Given his history, I would think a ban on Kurdish-related editing an apt remedy. An hour ago I left a note on his talk page and he screamed at me. I don't see him as willing to work with others on this subject. --Moby 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentors I see it as our main jobs to keep Cool_Cat (talk · contribs) editing effectively and to avoid another rendezvous with the arbitration committee. As always, it is not Cool Cat's judgement on content that is in question but the way in which he interacts with others on some subjects. Yesterday he was blocked for forty-eight hours by Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a result of the complaint by Moby_Dick (talk · contribs). In Lethe's view, Cool Cat has edited disruptively on the subject of the Kurds so arbitration remedy 5 is invoked.

This isn't the first time since the arbitration that we've had trouble with Cool Cat over Kurds. From early March he has made some unconstructive AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan

and some unconstructive comments on others:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=44203127

There is an ongoing concern, and I think a valid one, that Cool Cat permits his edits on such issues to be influenced too strongly by his sympathies with Turkish nationalism. He repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia.

Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so.

It is for this reason that I announced the one-week ban.

However, User:MacGyverMagic is also one of Cool Cat's mentors, and although in this case I have acted alone I do not intend to take actions with which any of my fellow mentors disagree.

In view of MacGyverMagic's opposition, I rescind the ban pending further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting these other activities; the scope of the issue is greater than I was aware (and I now understand the restaurant references).

While I disagree with User:Cool Cat's judgment on many of the Kurd-issues here, it is his attitude that is most troublesome. In his response below I see no sign that he sees any validity to the objections others have raised -- he appears to be simply digging in his heels. If no action is taken on this issue, what's to stop him from continuing to obstruct efforts involving Kurds in the future? Presumably this whole incident will have been noted by a variety of people, but I don't expect many to involve themselves in the issue (which I would welcome).

I understand that banning someone is a serious step and should not be taken lightly. I will avoid editing any of the Kurd articles and categories against consensus. If a clear direction on an appropriate course to take on Kurdish categorization comes out of this whole dispute I'll be pleased. --Moby 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of Batman, Turkey

A review of the editing on Batman, Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the last two months will reveal that User:Cool Cat has edit warred and generally disrupted all efforts by a number of editors, including myself. He has repeatedly removed categories related to Kurds, and sources and statements about Kurds, and he has been joined by anons that make the same redactions that he does. At the moment the article is protected due to an edit war (that I was not involved in) over the addition of a paragraph about the killing of a Kurdish child by Turkish Security Forces (I did add the paragraph and a source). While it was anons that edit warred with various users, it was User:Cool Cat that argued on the talk page against the inclusion of the paragraph . --Moby 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And you have declared the place predominantly kurdish when neither a census nor any other reliable source to base this on is avalible. You have also declared many other cities predominatly kurdish.

My 'disruption' is explaining that a census was not held even though the BBC claims the place is predominantly kuridsh (in a random news coverage)

--Cat out 17:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding that incident, if I recall correctly davenbelle had it on his userpage... Something about a "bullet riddled child". Admins can check the delet history. --Cat out 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think adding a cunk of 'sensative information' irrelevant to the topic covered is most certainly not in the best interest of wikipedia. It only leads to a revert war as we can observe. --Cat out 23:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You must be recalling some other "bullet riddled child" -- Fatih Tekin was killed recently.

According to the EU-Turkey Civic Commission Submission on Recent Violence, on March 30, 2006, Fatih Tekin, a 3 year old boy, was shot and killed by Turkish Security forces during a police raid on a civilian house in Batman during a series of violent clashes in the Kurdish regions of Turkey.EU-Turkey Civic Commission Submission on Recent Violence on khrp.org

--Moby 06:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Has to be a coincidence... Now what did I say about coincidences...

How does this "bullet riddled child" expand the article? How does it give the reader a better understanding of the city? As unfortunate and tragic the boys death is, wikipedia is not a memorial and the incident has no significance to the city to be on the article. It might have been an interesting wikinews article, though I am not even certain of that. It is equaly irrelevant to talk about that kurdish boy pkk shot and killed or that teacher that died due to a heart attack.

Recently two little girls were abducted, raped, and murdered in texas (IIRC). No referance to the incident is made in the article about the region as it shouldn't.

--Cat out 08:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's response to all of this

It is quite pathetic when one has to defend himself to his mentor... I'll list the articles, categories, and templates I have placed for deletion below. I am going to include ones Tony Sidaway did not include as well.

I'd like to point out the reason why we do not do polls for deletion. All deletion processes are a concensus gathering process. However on occasions disruptive behaviour such as Vote Stacking do happen.

Hence I will explain all of the deletion votes I started or participated. I will try to be brief for all of them.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
  • Article was originaly talking about two countries that have supposively existed. One only lasted 2 years while another lasted less than 6 months. The article(s) barely occupy a paragraph and had two sections I believe.
  • Article at a point was comparing the british goverment with saddam as "the british goverment gassed the kurds".
  • I was in contact with Tony on IRC about this deletion, I do not recall the details but he did not say or imply such a deletion would be disruptive.
  • During the vfd the articles quality was improved sligtly
  • Perhaps article is much suitable to be a section on an article with the title "Modern History of the Kurds" as article cant grow much even when inflated with lists of cabinate members.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
  • When I placed this article up for deleteion it was talking about an insignificant restourant which two kurds supposively had been shot. At the time the article barely could be considered a stub. After the deletion article was slightly inproved and renamed. It became a historicaly significant incident and hence became article worthy as an incident rather than info about the restourant.
  • I discussed the possible afd of this article with Tony Sidaway on IRC and he said it was pretty useless and that he said it wouldnt probably survive a deletion.
  • The result of my Afd is a better article with a better title.
  • This article should be a section at "Modern history of the Kurds" as article is too short and cant grow as the incident was quite minor and all details have been presented.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan
  • Other editors, one being Gruntness feels this article exists soely as a pov fork. Syrian Kurdistan was deleted for that reason
  • There was a case of vote stacking over 14 people were notified of this afd of which all but one voted favorably to the advertisier (user:Bertilvidet) with keep. My complaint about a vote stacking generated milimal response and no action.
  • Article currently gives a short intoduction to kurdish history which is a copy of History of the Kurds and a number of articles. Kurdistan is not oversized and we do have a Kurds in Turkey if we are to talk about the kurds. We can talk about Kurdish nationalism in its own article.
  • If we had a sensable deletion process this article would have been deleted. If you think otherwise please provide a rationale at what purpose does this article with pov titile, Turkish Kurdistan, serve that cant be achieved through Kurds in Turkey and Kurdish nationalism.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
  • It is a strange article. I believe this article is nothing but pusedo science and promotes racisim. When I nominated this article for deleteion there was a VERY LARGE dna picture and it was less than neutral. it might be a nice addition to a section under Kurdish people. BUT etnicity is a cultural concept not genetic. Genetic would be race and last time I checked Kurds were just an ethnic minority.
• Category:Kurdish terrorists
  • I got this category speedy deleted.
  • I personaly believe Abdullah Ocalan is a Kurdish terrorist. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
• Category:PKK victims
  • I got this category speedy deleted.
  • I personaly believe PKK is a Terrorist organisation and anybody they killed is a victim. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
• Template:Kurd-politician-stub ^(vote)
  • I participated in this vote expressing why the stub category is pov. Stub types have very explicit guidelines.
  • I'd like to point out comments of some of the people voting keep... They are by far intruguing
  • I have not initiated this deletion
  • The "unless we consider kurdish a nationality and kurdistan a country which would be pov not shared by international treaties" comment tony highlighted is in parallel with stub guidelines.
    • While a Category:Kurdish politicians may be approporate. I would however prefer a categorisation similar to the format politicians in United States is covered such as Category:African American politicians. Tagging a Kurd in Iraq and Turkey under the same category would be problematic and confusing. However I do not intend to do anything about it as my block is proof wikipedia is not worth my devotion anymore.
• Template:Kurdistan-politician-stub
  • Speedy deleted as per vote mentioned above.
  • User:Retau created this
• Template:Kurdistan-bio-stub ^(vote)
  • Probably will be deleted as a back log as per stub sorting practice.
  • User:Retau created this
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces and #Category:Kurdish cities
  • We do not categorise provinces, cities, or other landmarks based on ethnicity. I do not see why kurds are treated diferently from rest of wikipedia.
  • If demographic information about an ethnicity is avalible it can be presented in an article.
  • Who determines which article fits in these category or not? Kurdistan does not have defined borders nor are there any reliable data on Kurdish population.
  • Categories are navigation aids. The basis of such categories for provinces and cities is based on "who owns the place". Categories are not tools for territory grab. We do not tag every province and city in mainland china under Category:Taiwan just because the goverment claims it. Kurds do not even have a country to claim territory from.
  • User:Retau created both of the categories
  • See User:El_C's comment about User:Retau on the next section.
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region
  • Originaly intended to be a comprimise to Category:Kurdistan. I requested its creation from user:Ed poor via email and/or irc.
  • I later changed my mind as categorising based on ethnicity still is a poor practice. No example of ethnic tagging exists in articles like New York or California.
  • It is more problematic as we do not have any reliable statistics regarding the Kurds. We do not know how many kurds there are let alone know what fraction of the population they occupy as no census about ethnicity was EVER held in the past 7 decades at least to my knowlege.
• Categories I haven't touched nor intend to touch Category:Kurdish people, Category:History of the Kurds, Category:Kurdish musicians, Category:Kurdish politicians, Category:Kurdish writers,... List goes on I am well aware of many other categories, articles, and templates related to the kurds. So I am definaltly not trying to delete everything related to kurds at random.
• My actions are infact reactions to mass creation of many contraversial categories all only exist soley to grab territory. I also raise concerns about tiny articles that have no way of growing. None of my actions have "distupted" the articles in question unless you consider improvement as disruption.

--Cat out 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On at least one matter of fact I must correct Cool Cat. He and I discussed the article Mykonos (restaurant) and I edited to add a reference from a Time article. I told him at 2007 UTC on March 1, 2006, that, as with all deletion candidates I edit, "I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted." I had told him at 2000, "the case is obviously notable. It led to an international incident" -Tony Sidaway 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I actualy interprted that as the article has a chance to survive as much as a snowball in hell. In any case my nomination was for a non-notable restourant. Overal the nomination improved the article, not disrupt. For instance it was renamed as it was not about this random restourant. --Cat out 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see in retrospect that my wording was unclear. I can see how this unintentionally misled you on the subject. --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, I do however owe you an apology for misinterpreting your words. I can also finaly understand why you kinda acted wierdly (from my perspective) at the time. Having said that, I am curious on what you think of the evidence I presented below? --Cat out 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, User:Cool Cat has responded here while blocked [7][8]. His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him. --Moby 09:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would just like to say that I support Cool Cat on this matter. The Kurdish categories were deleted before by nominations because of the vagueness of the borders of the proposed "Kurdistan" region - which had lead to edit wars in the past, they were created again by the User:Retau (Who may be a sockpuppet of User:Xebat according to CheckUser [9] - who was banned recently for a year according to the Aucaman ArbCom [10]). I believe User:Moby Dick has turned this simple matter to something very personal which I regret to say that will not help the matter. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've little opinion of the conjecture of a reincarnated Davenbelle, but there is a qualm in this editor's behavior. As per the above edvidence, this editor's initial confrontation with me conflicted over a userpage misunderstanding. This is a archived discussion on my talkpage which can be found here. After the I refuted the accusation, said editor took to being my shadow, which I noted after a number of appearences in locations across the encyclopedia which were in direct contact to my usertalk page (he has it consistently watchlisted you see). I made a final verification of this after he made a spell check on my talkpage, confirming he sees almost every comment posted there. [11] This has been prevelant ever since the allegation on AN/I, but I never gave it much heed and it didn't bother me, so I let it alone. There were no subsequent direct confrontations after this incident, so I assumed good faith, and didn't have a valid complaint anyway, since, despite his occasional trolling, Moby makes excellent contributions to article space, not to mention ground-breaking work. [12] Proceeding that incident, I took his talkpage off my watchlist and went about other things. I soon forgot the subject and the user, and made the presumption he had as well.

During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.231.130.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [13], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [14] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [15] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [16]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[17], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent. Not too much of a problem, since it was bedtime anyway.

The editor in question persisted. After a clearly confused william asked how it was relevant, Moby replied I circumvented my block and I was still up to something [18] (I was still plotting my master scheme, you know) and that I should still be punished. Now expasperated, I made another note on the talkpage and explained the situation in full. [19] which defused the matter. Around the ensuing timeframe, he proceeded to conflict in the Kurd-nonsense with Cool Cat, who was subsquently blocked. I'm aware that Cool Cat has a aggressive viewpoint on this subject and has encountered much opposition on this before, so I didn't comment on the matter, although it was quite obvious to the informed Moby didn't report the rfar violation in good faith. I took note of this after seeing his replies to various editors on subject on WP:AN/I, which gave me great cause for concern on his intent:

Revision as of 09:45, May 9, 2006 - "Thanks for you comment!"

Revision as of 09:28, May 10, 2006 - "..His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him."

I drew the line there. At wikipedia we report violations to enforce stability on article space and the workings of the site. Seeing this joy in the punishment of another user was very disturbing. One must really take into account weather this user is advocating the well-being of the article or muggery of those he disagrees with.

There certainly is a problem here.

At the current date, I was prompted by MONGO on my talkpage to accept an rfa [20], which I was hesitant, but felt I was ready for the additional workload. Before I accepted the nomination, I made note that I was being closely survallianced by Moby and I had no doubt a opposition would arise. I was correct in the assesment (I would have been honestly surprised had he not taken participation) [21], with said user agressively making the point of my image forgery and the rebuttal I made regarding his outrageous accusation. I was presently away from the computer, so when I returned I was atonished to find my rfa had already been withdrawn in an act of kindness by the nominator.

I stress that its not obtuse to believe Moby may be Davenbelle, as I'm still utterly baffled as to how a new user can simply migrate to a userpage, search the history extensively, and blow an ensuing argument about a misunderstanding out of porportion. It also strikes one as odd when a user immediately engages in long-standing conflict about aftermentioned article and makes reverts unusual for one so new. However, despite the sockkery or not, it needs to be known this editor has engaged in trolling and many contributions have been verified to be unwelcome at this encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, look who showed up. Yes, I opposed your RFA -- what were you thinking, with blocks just last week?

As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.

I do thank you for your praise of some of my edits; hope you don't take offence -- In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex is a wonderful book.

Also, you did comment on the matter involving User:Cool Cat and Kurds -- remember now?

--Moby 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (who is not a troll, thank you)

You sound just like a pouty child trying to lie his out of a fix by pretending it's all Cool Cat's fault. Give it up. I'm not impressed. -Zero^Talk 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While I believe that CoolCat hasn't looked especially open to compromise, it is unfair to declare that all of these actions are "disruptive" - it is unfortunate that he changed his mind about a compromise category but changing your mind should always be allowed. There is no general consensus about ethnic-geography categories. Indeed, these Kurdish examples seem to be the sole example of the type; presumably because most people find the idea of an ill-defined ethnic-geography category a bad idea. I am open to the idea if implemented properly, but the three ethnic-geography categories CoolCat has nominated were all, quite simply, dire. They had POV issues. They were poorly defined. The most recent one even had a grammatically incorrect name! I do not believe it is disruptive to nominate for deletion something that, in the reasonable opinions of many well-respected Wikipedians (and there are many who agreed with CoolCat - see the votes), does not belong on Wikipedia. CoolCat has not been mass-deleting Kurdish-related articles. He has not been attempting deletions of neutral, generally accepted, Kurdish categories. He has made a contentious attempt to expunge ethnic-geography cross-over categories, but these have widespread opposition from many sources so I don't think that it is genuinely disruptive. Nobody should be forced to compromise on the issue of ethnic-geography categories, since many Wikipedians reasonably disagree strongly with their creation - failure to agree on a compromise isn't necessarily a sign of disruption if you honestly believe (especially with something as "binary" in nature as a category) that something is a harmful or damaging idea. The fact that many of his nominations were speedied is an indication that he isn't being entirely disruptive, perhaps the restaurant and genetics AfDs were the closest to that mark. The thing that seems to be the real problem is that CoolCat isn't making a secret of his personal views. While sometimes he edits in a way that shows he is actually being a "Good Wikipedian" and going against personal preference in the interests of the encyclopedia (e.g. with the Kurdish terrorist category) when he is making a positive, useful contribution that seems "in tune" with his views, he looks like a disruptive POV-monger. Which in turn makes people vote against him unthinkingly... It would be better, perhaps, if he kept some of these topics at arm's length and merely brought these instances to the attention of Wikipedians known to be neutral on the Kurdistan question, to allow them to decide whether to make a deletion request or not. I simply can not believe that anybody would have cut any slack to Category:Hispanic inhabited region for instance: it would have been wiped off the face of the 'pedia without any second thoughts; however, the fact that it is CoolCat and the Kurds has meant that this category has a surprising number of keep votes. However, whether CoolCat wants to take this degree of extra care (and restrict his editing accordingly) in cases which are fundamentally non-disruptive should really be for CoolCat to decide, not any of us. TheGrappler 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick (talk · contribs)

I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.

1. User:Moby Dick has a total of 344 edits as of the preparation of this report.
   • I'd consider him to be new to wikipedia as he has been a wikipedian since december. This alone is not a problem though.
   • User:Davenbelle's last edit was on 03:20, 6 December 2005, User:Moby Dick made his first edit on 01:29, 23 December 2005
2. On 03:02, 26 January 2006 users makes his first edit into the wikipedia namespace and it is opposing my RfA [22]
   • He seems to have located my RfA conviniantly. It his his 84th edit. He also makes a very professional edit by incrementing the oppose counter. Its something often oldies fail to notice
   • We have not edited any articles in common meaning he did not know me at all.
   • He participated in a total of 2 RfA aside from my own. One for Megaman Zero (as oppose) and another for Khoikhoi (support). Both are figures I know. He is definately not a frequent voter.
   • User:Davenbelle had opposed my other previous two of my rfas.
     • One of these RfAs were filed by MegamanZero
     • User:Davenbelle managed to oppose it before the nominator, megaman zero, could support
3. On 07:57, 25 February 2006 MobyDick conviniantly discovered "forgery" on Megaman Zero's user page [23]
   • Long ago, on 20:05, 2 January 2006, User:Megaman Zero complained about User:Davenbelles behaviour on User:Davenbelles talk page. [24]
   • This is just 3 edits after him opposing my rfa. Mind the month long gap. It is strange to say the least.
   • User:Davenbelle gave User:Megaman_Zero the award.
   • This incident had made its way to the ANB. This is mobydicks first post to the ANB [25]
4. On 07:21, 10 March 2006, Moby Dick informs user:Aucaman about my RfAr [26]
   • It is possible that he could have learnt about the existance of the RfAr from my 3rd rfa nomination as I have mentioned it there. However a key question is why did he tell this to Aucaman. He has no edits in comon with Aucaman. Nor was he involved with anything related to the kurds.
   • This is his first post for 11 days, in the previous post he was complaining about megaman zeros award on the ANB. [27] [28]
5. On 02:41, 11 March 2006 [29] [30] user participated in his first deletion votes, both were initiated by Megaman Zero
6. On 05:09, 11 March 2006 this user oposed the copy vio nomination I made [31]
   • This is the first and last time the user participates in copyright matters
   • Davnbelle was involved with the Armenian Genocide article and was practicaly opposing anything I suggested. It can be said that was his entier contribution.
7. On 05:58, 11 March 2006 [32] user opposed the deletion of Category:Kurdistan which I initiated.
   • user had not been involved with any other issues regarding Kurds or any such deletion votes for that matter.
8. On 02:51, 13 March 2006 [33] user got involved with an article about kurds for the first time on Batman, Turkey article. He has repetively restored "Kurdish dominance" line by reverting my edit. This continued on
   • user:Bertilvidet is one other party desperately working to force "Kurdish dominance" to the lead.
   • Davenbelle also prefered to oppose me whenever possible. This might be too vauge to be considered as evidence but take a look at [34] and [35]
9. On 02:20, 1 May 2006 user created the KHRP redirect. [36]
   • There is nothing disruptive with that. however if you take a look at [37] you will see Davenbelle had initiated the article redirect leads to.

These are the coincidences I have found on frist sight. There are of course other cases I can post but I want to keep my report brief.

Among 6,828,332 many articles and 47,462,786 number of users, MobyDick's edits intersect with Davenbelle on more than one ocasion. Would make a great statistics research paper.

I wont come up with conclusions but I find the material I just posted very interesting.

--Cat out 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I actually liked this evidence gathering. Interesting indeed. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Telex 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Too long, indeed -- however I felt obliged to read it. User:Cool Cat is making this false allegation in order to divert attention from the issue of his behavior and, it would seem, in order to entangle me in his arbitration case. It is also not the first time has has made this sort of claim: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cool Cat. While the factual details -- who has edited what, for example -- of his accusation appear to be accurate (I've not checked), his spin and interpretation are entirely self-serving.

I believe I first encountered User:Cool Cat on the first CFD of Category:Kurdistan and did not like his obvious intent of limiting Kurdish content on Wikipedia. I have used Wikipedia as a reference for years and its greatest problem is inconsistent accuracy of information and it is the behavior of editors such as User:Cool Cat that is responsible for this.

User:Cool Cat's implied accusation (which he makes explicit here) can easily be explained by the fact that articles and users he refers to are all related; they involve Kurds or they involve him. He expresses concern that my edits are too "professional" for one so "new" -- as if this were the only wiki in the world.

I would add again that he does not appear to be interested seeking a consensus. He efforts here only serve to make the editing environment hostile.

--Moby 10:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting argument. What wiki do you normaly work for? Tonikaku, I may have been wrong on Amask's case but that has nothing to do with your case. Amask has participated in only two votes and one or two articles. Lets consider your statistics.

• You have participated in a total of 3 rfas, the first one you have ever voted was my rfa and you voted oppose, just like davenbelle. Coincidentaly the other two rfas are people who I know about. Of that MegamanZero is the person that told Davenbelle to stop stalking (See User Talk:Davenbelle). The other RfA you participated was for Khoikhoi who at the time in dispute with me. Lets call all that circumstential evidence and discard them.
• You have participated in a total of 8 deletion votes. 5 of them opposing me, 2 of them opposing megamanzero. So thats 7 out of 8 deletion votes we have in common. Again lets call that circumstential evidence and discard it.
• There is this hole case of you and megaman zero. You were complaining about something megaman zero recieved from davenbelle. MegamanZero at a point modifed the bycycle award to an exceptional newbie award long ago at 10:50, 18 January 2006. I Had to dig through the userpage history to discover the actual modification of the award and I knew what I was looking for.
  1. So we have an award given to MegamanZero by davenbelle.
  2. We have MegamanZero warning davenbelle to stop stalking me on a much later date. (a motive for davenbelle to seek "revenge") as MegamanZero and I had been close and still are close.
  3. We have megaman zero modifying the given award in 12 january (hey he can its his userpage)
  4. We have you detecting and "correcting" it on 25 february.
  5. We know you never met megamanzero on any article, meaning you didnt know him.

  So among 47,462,786 registered users, you found Megaman Zero at random. You also discovered "forgery" of an award on his userpage which required me to load a dozen diffs even though I knew what I was looking for.

• You make edits such as this or this. While to an untrained eye it is a simple vandalism reversion. Davenbelle was also very interested in the contravercy surrounding the Southeastern Anatolia Project ^([38]), an article I mostly wrote. Among 6,828,332 we meet on the same article as davenbelle edited on the same section.
• We also have you removing/objecting a copyright issue I posted concerning a letter and the Armenian Genocide [39]. It spikes my curiosity how on earth have you noticed that post? And if you are so concerned about copyrights why havent you ever commmented on another copyright issue?
• I noticed recently. So you have randomly discovered an edit of mine and since it is a redirect that is among 4,190,567 pages. You have reverted an edit of mine from 04:20, 12 April 2006.

You are complaining about me creating a hostile enviorment... How productive is you complaining about megaman zeros award? How would you describe your attitude?

Coincidences? Sure. A striking question is why would a user who had only edited articles about the novel featuring the whale Moby Dick suddenly start to edit articles related to Kurds, Armenians, and Turkey practicaly opposing me on every opertunity?

I said I wouldnt come up with the conclusions and I wont, however if davenbelle made edits like yours... he would be considered stalking in my view.

--Cat out 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and before I forget comments such as the one below create a hostile environment. Not just that, it is also very incivil.

As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.

Wikipedia prizes itself for its coverage on topics such as hard science as well as video games and Anime episode descriptions. Founder of wikipedia had made his view on this issue quite clear.

--Cat out 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, consider an ethnic group of twenty-odd million people to be a bit more encyclopaedic than a bunch of doe-eyed adolescent cartoon characters. --Moby 10:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to have your opinions. I for one consider all topics equally relevant and important. Certainly you appriciate fiction on wikipedia. You contributed a great deal to articles such as In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex. I do not understand why you think so 'lowly' of articles about 'a bunch of doe-eyed adolescent cartoon characters'. The ethnic group of twenty-odd million people is no more significant than Chaos theory. --Cat out 23:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex is not fiction. --Moby 06:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You think I'm stalking you? I want nothing more than to be rid of you. You are the one who seems to have studied every edit I've made, and who will spin any yarn it takes to minimise Kurdish coverage. --Moby 10:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not blame me for 'exposing' you monitoring my edits. I merely reviewed your contributions. I never accused you of stalking, I told everyone I wont be making the conclusions.

First step of any kind of investigation is to determine a motive. Based on your statement you confirm that your intentions are simply 'to get rid of me'. Thats not exactly an example of a friendly enviorment. Davenbelle was also pretty desperate to get rid of me.

--Cat out 02:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please to not misrepresent what I said. I said that I wanted to be rid of you not that I wanted to get rid of [you]. The meaning of what I said is that I do not want you opposing everything I or others try and achieve on articles and categories related to Kurds; you spun it so that it sounds like I want to put you in a river. --Moby 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I frankly do not see the difference in your comment. 'to be rid of you' and 'to get rid of you' sounds pretty much same to me. So you want me to leave the topics you disagree with me? Are you suggesting that I can't disagree with you? --Cat out 17:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat has problems with Kurds and Kurdistan. I remember reading a comment by User:Cool Cat stating how Kurds had a president in Turkey and what else could they want. I've asked the user politely to stop contributing on the PKK article because this user had a political point of view. But told me I couldn't ask him this. Ozgur Gerilla 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User: Anwar saadat

Hello, I am User: Benzee. I think I have been wrongly requested for sockpuppetry usage. I am not sure but he has been vandalising my page with Image copyright messages Like This after deleting the copyrights himself Proof. He has also vandalized pages such as Vijay's article. Since his only plan is to do vandalism, I suggest you block him for atleat 1 week or 1 month so he can let other wikipedians get on in their wiki careers as well as persoanl. He is targeting me for no apparent reason and no, I am not a sockpuppet of User: Naan Kadavul, my contributions are worthy and I am personally concentrating on reaching a separate wikipedia landmark. Keep up your good work adminstrators! Thanking You Benzee 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) May the force be with you!

There does seem to be problematic edits of a recent nature. Also, somehow I originally mistook this to be about the article Anwar Sadat. El_C 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

El C, please have a look at Talk:Ajith and Ajith. He is running a one-man blockade against User:Zora, User:Ganeshk, User:David crawshaw, and User:Blnguyen (myself) for removing blatant POV such as the constant use of "!", "mega-star" and "mega-hit" the usage of a magazine review term "Numero Uno" as a fact rather than endorsement, a whole list of random vague assertions, and threatened to report us for vandalism and trolling (it's a POV dispute). User:Pa7, User:Plumcouch, User:Srikeit and User:Nobleeagle have all agreed on the page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema that Anwar is trying to run a hagiography. He then reverted Pakistan (User:Dwaipayanc) and Hindutva (Nobleeagle) citing "vandalism" in the edit summary, when it is about the POV of the content. In one edit summary at Ajith, he wrote an edit summary in Tamil, meaning "shut up" - see translation at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I left the user a note about civility and hagiographical concerns. El_C 08:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had problems with that Anwar saadat user as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, can anyone attend to this case during my absence? Thanks in advance. El_C 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prin/Benzee/Naan_Kadavul confirmed as a sock on WP:RFCU. Note that all of the accounts have been chronic copyvioers. --Rory096 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet

This user keeps reverting other users at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, insisting on using British English usage and spelling. In particular, he insists that we should use the word "transport" instead of "transportation", because supposedly the word "transportation" is American English. I already explained to him on his talk page that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style clearly stated that "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change", but it was to no avail. He has deleted my message on his talk page, but you can find it here ([40]). You can also notice that Captain Scarlet created on his user page a special language tag that I am reproducing here:

AmE-0

This user does not understand the American English language and bloody well doesn't want to.

Other incidents involving Captain Scarlet were already reported, but they were archived without explanation. You can find the archived incidents here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive94#User:Captain scarlet. Hardouin 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This naming incident is a misguided attempt. Tranportation was not changed to British English but brought in line with the article for transport Transport in France. It makes sence to have all articles refering to transportation in France to match the national article. I have been unable to have Hardouin see the importance of consistency throughout french articles in this matter. All messages from Hardouin have been kept and archived. The language template has been on Wikipedia for months and I am not its creator, the template was deleted (see Template:User_AmE-0, where its history is protected). Regards, Captain scarlet 13:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Without wanting to get involved in the dispute: the Manual of Style says that "[if] there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." There is no official French dialect of English, so "the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used." The first significant contributor was Hardouin (talk · contribs) here. If you wish to see the wording changed to match the main relevant category, Captain scarlet, argue for it on the article's talk page. But there is nothing at this point in the wikipedia namespace policies and guidelines to mandate your change, and edit warring certainly doesn't help. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (note: I am not saying that the section can never be called Transport, I'm saying that this is not the way to achieve such a change.)

This article is on a place in France, so European English (British English) should be used according to the Manual of Style. —Ruud 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Woah! That is a significant change in the understanding of English dialects. When did that slip through? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Koot, but I don't think that's accurate. The Manual of Style doesn't mention any sort of British dominion over articles pertaining to European topics. It's my recollection that the British ultimately lost the 100 Years War, so articles about French topics aren't held to either British or American English. JDoorjam Talk 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The two editors above me are right: there is no such mention in the Manual of Style. In fact, the only mention that comes remotely close to Europe is this: "Article on European Union institutions: British, Irish and Maltese English usage and spelling". In other words: wikipedia has no preference for British English over other dialects of English when it comes to Europe. The only thing in the Manual of Style that applies here is that "the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used." The first significant contributor is Hardouin, and he/she used Transportation. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ditto what Aecis & JDoorjam wrote, I won't go any deeper. JackLumber 20:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems there was some discussion last week on clarifying the MoS on this point: Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style#EU. I made the same inference as Woodstone did in that discussion: the article is related to France and, if the situation is similar to that in the Netherlands, the French are thaught British English at school. That said, this edit war exceeds the usual lameness of spelling wars. —Ruud 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Another candidate for a job at the soup kitchen. The key is consistency within an article. Beyond that, the status quo has an advantage over any change. Anyone changing for pigheaded, chauvanistic reasons is no better than a vandal. If a person is changing not to correct mistakes in information, not to aid in coherence, but rather because he or she is a bigot about his own nation or a visionary who wants to assume what other nations should write like. What is the difference between someone rewriting an article that is consistent and clear to reflect his personal fetish for language and someone doing so to reflect his personal political views? Both are changes that do not aid anyone but the editor, and that's not what we're here for. Geogre 23:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because I have nothing better to do...okay, that's a lie, but I couldn't help myself. From Google:

• 1,810,000 for behaviour site:.fr
• 1,600,000 for behavior site:.fr

• 11,700,000 for licence site:.fr
• 6,170,000 for license site:.fr

• 84,500 for petrol site:.fr
• 44,000 for gasoline site:.fr

• 31,500 for "different to" site:.fr
• 509,000 for "different from" site:.fr.

• 44 for "estate wagon" site:.fr
• 26,300 for "station wagon" site:.fr

• 449 for rubber tyre site:.fr
• 10,100 for rubber tire site:.fr

• 60,000 for lorry site:.fr
• 367,000 for truck site:.fr

I'm not seeing a whole lot of dominance by any particular variety of English, based on this rough survey. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you take into account that "licence" and "tire" are also French words? This thwarted my attempt to see if the French prefer American over British humo(u)r. —Ruud 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but it might explain the bulges in their results. And since the French love Jerry Lewis, clearly the French prefer American over British humo(u)r. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My reason for changing Transportation to Transport had nothing to do with changing American to English but to appky consistency between Transport in France to a section of transport in France, as state in all of my edit summaries. Replying to Calton and as a parenthesis, English is taught in France rather than American, I'd know. The above debate if off topic since the reason for changing the chapter header was not the reason stated by Hardouin as seen in my edit summaries. It is though likely that I will report Hardouin on other matters of vandalism and unwillingness to cooperate with other editors, myself and others. Regards Captain scarlet 16:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I recomend taking this american vs british argument to somewhere else. --Cat out 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User removing warnings from talk page

Could someone look into User:Jachin and talk page history? He appears to be selectively removing personal attack warnings and the like from his talk page (see [41]). I've been steadily ignored so far, and I'd like another admin to look into it. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Zzzzz. I noticed him using popups to revert good faith edits, and asked him politely a couple of times [42] [43] to stop (as did User:Titoxd [44]). Zzzzz archived his talk page without the warnings on it [45]. I then told him to stop [46], and was reverted [47], upon which I gave him a warning [48], and was reverted again [49], along with a comment from User:Worldtraveller [50]. I know that Zzzzz is a good contributor, and I'm not sure what to do at this point. TheJabberwʘck 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Zzzzz has removed messages placed by User:141.133.153.2 and User:InShaneee [51]. TheJabberwʘck 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be archiving them now, immediately moving them over to his archives, which while slightly annoying does not seem serious enough an issue for admin intervention. JoshuaZ 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In my note to him I suggested he archive, at least it's better then having him delete them. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's selectively archiving to edit out any warning messages or message about disputes he's been involved in even after many polite messages (which he's also removing)[52][53] . Archiving is just fine, even if it is immediate but selectively removing warnings and discussion? Not quite kosher either. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, user:Pcbcbc used to do that. It eventually got to be a very serious problem. It isn't illicit, but it's sure misleading. Geogre 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now placed a message on his talk page stating "NOTICE: Messages placed on this page are deleted at my discretion." I definatly agree now that this is the start of something problematic. He should know that warnings should not be deleted so off-the-cuff, as it makes it very hard to judge whether the user's been warned previously. --InShaneee 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, now that gives me an idea! (bad faith gaming of the NA policy in the first place.) Prometheuspan 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment - if we want to continue making an issue of 'removal of warnings' then it should be written into the policies. Currently this view is founded on WP:VAND, which says only that removing vandalism warnings is considered vandalism, and WP:TALK which says that removing messages without responding may be considered "hostile" or 'uncivil'... but that restoring such removed messages is "not proper" and edit warring. That's pretty weak grounds on which to base a claim that 'all warnings must be retained'... it actually makes the repeated restoration of such (as has been done) a blockable offense.

That said - I'm not a big fan of this approach. Nobody likes 'being scolded' and then being told that you have to keep the 'scarlet letter' on your talk page in perpetuity? It looks like, and sometimes is, harrassment. They've been warned. They saw the message. Mission accomplished. Forcing them to keep warnings on their talk page for every visitor on completely unrelated issues to see is unneccessarily punitive. The only 'plus' from such is to allow admins to see that the person has received prior warnings, but I don't think that's worth antagonizing people further. We can always check the history... use edit summaries like 'Warning: <whatever>' and they'll be easy to pick out. --CBDunkerson 11:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone is pressed for specific links to policy on the matter, here are three: Help:Talk_page#Etiquette, Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism under "removing warnings". Stifle (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And also, this is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has been out at the barn wall with a can of paint again. Setting aside that it's usually a good idea to make the proposal before changing policy pages... this is still just a proposal. Which I (amongst others) strongly disagree with. The minor benefit of 'making it easier to see that the user has been warned before' is far outweighed by the negative effects of the antagonism inherent in the proposed procedure. Warnings ought to be friendly reminders or notifications of 'the rules' rather than scarlet letters used to humiliate people. There is no epidemic of people getting away with repeated policy violations because no one notices that they have done it before... and thus no need for this policy change. We have plenty of tools for keeping track of 'troublemakers' currently without needing to add one which causes more problems than it solves. --CBDunkerson 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think there is a big difference between having to retain scarlet letters and immediately transferring selectively to archives. The question is whether we're talking about normal talk page behavior and an overt intent to mislead. It's a judgment call. Until the issue that generates the "warnings" gets up to RFC or mediation level, the transferring to archives is just a symptom. Once there is an RFC or RFar or Mediation attempt, I would say that those assessing behavior should see the transferring to archives and assess whether or not it is a piece of evidence. For me, it would be a heavily weighted piece of evidence of an intent to operate outside of consensus and against policy, whether the archiving were itself an offense or not. Geogre 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jachin's reply is here. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:Mccready for Wikistalking

User:Mccready has been Wikistalking and generally harassing User:SlimVirgin. He originally got into some dispute with SlimVirgin over the Animal rights article, adding that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family! [54] When challenged over that, he decided to rewrite the consensus intro instead, and when SlimVirgin reverted, he threatened to open an RfC on her, and proceeded to revert every day while issuing a second warning and third warning, accompanied by more threats on the talk page. He then complained about her on WP:AN/I, [55] because inter alia she had "introduced her views on Israel into the animal-rights page" by referring to the State of Israel, and had violated 3RR by reverting four times in 60 hours. [56] [57] She requested protection for Animal rights, which left him with nothing to fight about, so over the course of the next few days he stalked her to Lauren Slater [58] (which she was working on and he had never edited); New anti-Semitism [59] (which she was working on and he had never edited); and Rat Park [60] (which she'd created and he had never edited). He then noticed she'd reported Gene Nygaard for a 3RR violation, so he stalked her to the WP:AN/3RR page and reported her for a violation which she had already rectified. [61] At this point I warned him that he needed to desist from Wikistalking her: [62] He stopped wikistalking her, but continued to make frivolous complaints about her on this page (e.g. [63] [64]) As she refused to rise to his bait, after several days he decided to again wikistalk her to a new article, Hamas, which she was editing extensively (including a couple of hours earlier) and which he had never edited before: [65] At this point I blocked him for 24 hours for Wikistalking, which is forbidden by policy. He has objected to this block, as has one other editor. Wikipedia has over 1 million articles; Mccready has no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just recently edited. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Like we didn't see this coming... Wikistalking has been an ongoing problem with Mccready. He's had many warnings and none seem to have made an impression, so a block makes sense here. FeloniousMonk 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd rather see him blocked for something he actually did wrong. There were earlier complaints that look well justified, and he's been blocked before. But I cannot agree with a block simply for editing the same articles as someone else. The link presented as stalking evidence is a good, although minor, edit. If blocking is warranted, surely there will be a better example of blockworthy behavior forthcoming. Friday (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether you want to call this wikistalking or disruption, I support a short cooling off for him. He's been acting out in similar ways for long enough that I've certainly noticed it. The issue isn't that he's making bad edits (necessarily, though some of them might be), it's that he's deliberately, purposefully inserting himself practically everywhere SlimVirgin edits, presumably as some form of payback for whatever his beef is with her. It's just not acceptable behavior. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it a horribly bad precedent to set that sensible edits can be considered wikistalking due to our speculation about bad motives behind it. I see reasonable behavior in his latest edits. If he was leaving edit summaries like "revert idiotic edit by >whoever<" or something, I would consider that strong evidence of stalking, but I don't see anything like that. If he was starting to get the hint, we're not helping by throwing another block at him. If he's going to be blocked for harmless edits, he cannot be an editor- he should be community banned instead. If a community ban is what's really going on here, let's be up front about it. All I see so far is people continuing to take him to task for which articles he's edited, and I find that unhelpful- it's only going to reinforce his belief that he's being unjustifiably picked on. Friday (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be considered speculation if they randomly turned up at the same articles. That's not what's happening here. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday (Mccready emailed me too, BTW). There is no justification whatsoever for blocking him for the edit on Hamas that Friday linked to. In my opinion, the reason why someone is editing a particular article is not important at all. If they're harassing someone and/or attacking them constantly, then I think they should be blocked (and banned and get their backsides kicked), but if 'wikistalking' means editing the same articles as someone else (as long as the 'stalker' is being civil), then I can't see a problem with it. - ulayiti (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase User:JoshuaZ, it must be just a coincidence that Mccready is interested in animal rights, antisemitism, obscure psychology experiments, American authors, and now the Middle East, just like User:SlimVirgin, and in an even bigger coincidence he just happens to edit specific articles in those topic areas minutes after SlimVirgin does. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right- there's no justification whatsoever for blocking him for the edit on Hamas that Friday linked to, but there is for wikistalking. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By Jayjg's own explanation here, the wikistalking was a few days ago. Then he stopped. The only evidence provided that he's been stalking again is that Hamas diff- which clearly shows a harmless edit, yet Jayjg still used it as justfication for a block. Are we punishing him for what he did a few days ago, or is there an ongoing problem here? I have yet to see any diff which shows evidence of an ongoing problem right now. Friday (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying "harmless edit" as if that makes a difference. The harm was in the stalking, not the edit. The ongoing problem right now is that he wikistalked SlimVirgin to yet another article. This needs to stop. Wikipedia has over a million articles; Mccready does not need to "just happen to edit" the ones that SlimVirgin has just been editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How does it harm anyone if they just happen to edit the same article as someone else? Is someone going to block me for wikistalking, say, JIP (talk · contribs), for editing some of the same articles as him just because we have some similar interests (eg Finland-related articles)? Maybe I could block Obli (talk · contribs) because he's edited both IB Diploma Programme and Extended Essay, both articles that I've created? Most articles are edited primarily by people who are interested in the subject, and people share similar interests. That is not 'wikistalking' And Hamas is also not exactly a particularly obscure article that nobody edits. (I might have edited that too, does that make me a wikistalker?)

In my opinion, wikistalking can't be just editing the same articles. There has to be something else into it as well, like personal attacks, edit wars, systematic reversions or something like that. A minor grammatical change doesn't count as any of those. - ulayiti (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Mccready says he's not doing it on purpose. What happened to assuming good faith? - ulayiti (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, AGF loses to Occam's razor. Thatcher131 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready emailed me about this. I half expected to find some kind of rouge admin abuse, and it was no surprise to find just that. He needs to stop it. I don't know the best way to achieve that, but this is a way. Just zis Guy you know? 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much involvement in articles that SlimVirgin edits, but even I have noticed that Mcready was stalking her. I can understand Friday's point about setting a precedent by blocking someone for sensible edits that just happen to be on the same article that another editor has edited. But I think it could be even more dangerous not to be allowed to block for that. I've seen a lot of wiki-stalking since I arrived here, and on many occasions the stalker denied it — explaining that he had found the article by clicking "recent changes", or by following a link from another article, etc. Since this is something that we can never prove, a block seems quite appropriate when it's "beyond reasonable doubt". If someone stalks another editor ninety-nine times, and then makes an innocent edit on the hundredeth time, without realizing that his opponent has just edited it, well, he doesn't really have grounds to complain if he gets blocked, does he? I'm sure that finding that someone you've had a dispute with has just followed you to yet another article must be quite creepy and must sap a lot of the joy out of editing Wikipedia. We need to have the ability to put a stop to it, and if the block is an unfair one (which I don't think to be the case here), by all means let's review it at this noticeboard. AnnH ♫ 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• "finding that someone you've had a dispute with has just followed you to yet another article must be quite creepy and must sap a lot of the joy out of editing Wikipedia. " This is my sentiment exactly; even if the edits are harmless, do you want someone hovering over your shoulder all the time? I support a short block, this is obviously not a coincidence. Thatcher131 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and there's always an "explanation"; as I said above, as Mccready claims it must be just a coincidence that he is interested in animal rights, antisemitism, obscure psychology experiments, American authors, and now the Middle East, just like User:SlimVirgin, and in an even bigger coincidence he just happens to edit specific articles in those topic areas minutes after SlimVirgin does. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The crime of wikistalking is not editing the same articles as another editor, it is harassing them. Based on this editor's history, it is clear that user:Mccready has targetted user:SlimVirgin. That these edits, often minor, came after numerous complaints about SV shows an intent to harass or intimidate her. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all combat zone. Users more interested in fighting than editing should be blocked. -Will Beback 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is more to the story. User:Mccready followed User:SlimVirgin to my RFA FloNight's RfA (she nom me). He made negative comments about admins in general and me in particular. He also sent emails directing users to my RFA. User talk:Mccready#Emails? I believe my response to his actions was respectful and restrained. Going forward, I planned to ignore the incident until I received an email from him today. I found it troubling and needing a response from him. I left a message on his talk page giving him an opportunity to correct the problem. User talk:Mccready#Your email request is troubling I will discuss this further if needed. FloNight ^talk 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of behavior that's apparently continued until today. Jayjg warned Mccready that if he stalked SlimVirgin to one more article he'd be blocked. He did it again, therefore was blocked. Friday argues that Jayjg has essentially produced one edit and that can't be used to justify "stalking," and in another instance I'd probably agree. But this one edit was the one step over the line it took for a block (for which he was warned). It was bound to happen if he continued this behavior; good faith isn't limitless. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, making an edit 3 hours after SlimVirgin is considered stalking? He removed 1 word. One word. Does he have to check every single article he copyedits to make sure SlimVirgin has never edited it? In case you folks are a bit behind on wikipolicy, let me quote it: "a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons." Looking at the diff, Mccready removed the word "out". Wow. What a disruptive edit. I bet it made SlimVirgin extremely distressed that Mccready removed this essential word.

Maybe this is what happened: Mccready saw something about Hamas on the news, and decided to read the article. He thought the word "out" was out of place, so he went to edit it. I have done this exact same thing many times. Whenever I see something interesting in the news, I immediately go to Firefox and type in "wp [whatever]" to see if that news is in the article, and often I read it and I see something strange, I copyedit it. I don't go into the history to make sure that certain editors haven't edited it. That is simply unreasonable. Is that what you expected him to do there? Whether or not he meant it in bad faith, I don't know, but this isn't "zero tolerance", this is "negative tolerance". You folks were just looking for the perfect excuse to jump on him. Jayjg says that his edit occurred "within minutes" of SlimVirgin's edit; SlimVirgin's previous edit was a full 3 hours earlier than Mccready's. That's certainly not "within minutes", unless you are referring to the alternate definition of "minutes" - and I doubt you were making an issue out of Mccready's relative geographical location. – ugen64 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It was the third last article on her Recent Contributions list, and she'd edited the Talk: page 130 or so minutes earlier. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out Ugen64, unless you're trying to wilfully deny reality for some reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to opt for a less heated, more composed preamble, Ugen. I find this sort of tone to be clearly unproductive and that it does not contribute positively to the discussion. At any rate, it appears that this user largely focused on articles SlimVirgin edits in order to cause her grief, and that this has been going on for quite some time now. Thus, his edit history, and its specific pattern vis.a.vis SV's needs to be examined in its totality. With the final straw not being viewed in isolation but in the context of prior edits. El_C 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them:

• he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [66];
• threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [67] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [68]);
• issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [69];
• issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [70];
• issues a "second warning" to me [71];
• issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [72];
• issues a "3rd warning" to me [73];
• threatens to "report" Justen [74];
• threatens to report Seth as a vandal [75];
• Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [76] [77] [78]

On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited. Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing, and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I got an email from McCready (who I'd never heard of before, apparently because I'm well respected- huh?!) to ask me to help him mediate against SV. Well, A quick look around the place suggests that I'd better not take up the request. Did anybody also get a mail from McCready to back him up at animal rights? For the record, the argument at Animal rights seems rather trivial in terms of content?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me as well. But the wording is more terse. Kimchi.sg 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He even e-mailed me to ask me to unblock him, which was bizarre given it was me he was following around. He did this over FloNight's adminship too: e-mailed a lot of people he didn't know in the hope of pulling in a few opposes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been many "yes but" reasons given here. It's clear that there's no evidence that the diff Jayjg labelled as stalking is a disruptive edit. And many have said, "yes, but look at all the other bad things this user has done." What you're arguing for with these reasons is a community ban, people. It may even be time for such a measure, but it should be discussed honestly, not disguised as something else. This editor has been a nuisance, certainly- nobody is disputing that. What we're disputing (and I continue to strongly feel is a terrible precedent) is the idea that editing the same article as someone you don't like is wikistalking. This would be a ridiculous, unworkable standard. If he's going to be blocked for harmless edits, let's be honest and call it community ban- that's what it effectively is. Maybe I have unusually strong feelings on this, having been repeatedly accused of stalking myself (and the evidence presented was, "Look, you edited an article that I edited!"). Anyway, this whole argument could easily have been avoided by doing one simple thing:do not block people for made-up reasons if there are good reasons available. If there are no good reasons, don't block. I suspect there would have been far less disagreement if this had been presented as a general disruption block. The moral of the story is simple: When you block a user, leave a note on the talk page explaining why. The reasons given should be sufficiently explained that an uninvolved, impartial observer will agree that the block is justified. I would have expected that this standard would have been obvious to anyone who's been given the block button. Friday (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Who said anything about a community ban? This is a 24 hour block. Thatcher131 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And if 24 hour blocks for harmless edits are what he's going to continue to get, this is effectively a community ban. I'm just suggesting we be realistic and recognize it for what it is. If he's not going to be blocked again for harmless edits, that's another story of course. Friday (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No wikistalking edits are "harmless", because they damage the victim of the wikistalking, and all wikistalking edits must be discussed in the context of "all the other bad things this user has done", because wikistalking is a pattern of behavior. As for the claim of a "community ban", that's just nonsense; this was a 24 hour block for wikistalking, and, as has been pointed out many times before, there are over a million articles Mccready can edit, he has no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just edited. Finally, the block was indeed explained, and all sorts of uninvolved, impartial observers have agreeed that the block was entirely justified. The real moral here is that some people will deny reality regardless of the evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree. You're continuing to assert that [this edit was harmful to SlimVirgin. To me, this is such a bizarrely incomprehensible belief that I can only assume that your own prior involvement is impairing your ability to look at this situation neutrally. The reason I keep bringing up the community ban issue is just common sense: we have no article ownership here. If he's going to continue to be blocked for edits like that, he cannot be an editor. It's that simple. If we're deciding that he cannot be an editor, let's actually be honest about what we're deciding. Friday (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What explains the fact that most of the other people who have commented here also share this "bizzarely incomprehensible belief"? Do they also have a "prior involvement" which is "impairing [their] ability to look at this situation neutrally"? As for your other claim, it's equally nonsensical; I'll just repeat - there are over a million articles out there. All he needs to do is stop wikistalking SlimVirgin to the paltry few she has just edited. It is absurd to claim that this means he "cannot be an editor" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You put articles you edit on your watchlist, right? So how would you feel if every time you edited an article, it jumped to the top of your watchlist with the same name attached? The name of an editor who has argued with you, filed arguably false complaints and made threats against you. At the very least you say, "oh no, not again" and you have to check the diff because many (but not all) of his edits are disruptive. How would like to log on in the morning to see the five or six or ten articles at the top of your watchlist all with the same name on them. If that's not stalking, then tell me, how many more would it take? If you think this is going to turn into a series of blocks amounting to a community ban, you are conceding more about Mccready than you think you are. Thatcher131 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just had a couple comments and then hopefully I'll shut up. I'm not a fan of admins inventing new rules for users and enforcing them with blocks, but if it must be done, let's at least be reasonable about it. I know, "no wikistalking" isn't a new rule, but "no editing pages that user X has touched" is a new rule and should be treated as such. If it's actually true that Mccready can edit as long as he follows Jayjg's orders, what are those orders, exactly? Is he never to touch any article that Slim has ever touched? Or is there a certain timeframe involved? These are fairly extraordinary requirements; they should at least be spelled out, or he has no hope of being able to abide by the rules. I dislike such specific rules myself- I'd rather just base decisions on the actual edits, but there appear to be people who want rules along these lines. If orders are going to be invented and enforced, explaining this situation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mccready and on his talk page is probably a good idea. I have to admit I'm far more comfortable with editor-specific restrictions being imposed by the Arbcom than by just one admin. I apologize for posting so much here- it's possible I've been doing nothing but feeding the troll with my objections here, but I do feel it's important to nail down what is or is not wikistalking. Friday (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That may need to be done, but this isn't the proper place for it -- the wikistalking page is, or some other place such as that. Many, many people have commented here and agreed that what Mccready has been doing is harassing and disruptive, and his continuing lack of recognition of the reason why his behavior is being censured is just as disturbing. So in this instance I think the block was well justified. The straightforward direction Mccready can follow is simple: stop doing what you've been doing. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I know for a fact that you mean well, because you always do, and I respect what you say, but you've unfortunately hit the nail on the head with your "feeding the troll" observation. I hope you realize that he e-mailed a large number of people and told many of them, and perhaps all, that he was writing because he respected them so much, even though he doesn't know them. It's important to take a long, hard look at who's acting in good faith here. You're welcome to e-mail me if you'd like to discuss it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Undermining wikipedia foundations - new definition of wikistalking

This block undermines wikipedia foundations. Read on and you’ll see the claim is not overblown.

Jayjg’s accusation lacks substance and makes incorrect assumptions, particularly in regard to Gene Naagard. That a senior admin can jump to conclusions, accuse me of “baiting” and making “frivolous complaints” (they still haven’t been dealt with), and believe I should not edit articles which Slim has edited staggers me. Once again, there is no demonstration of harassment here despite requests to provide it. And this is where the foundations are being undermined. Jayjg and others want to stop me editing pages another person has edited. There is no examination of the quality of my edits, no examination of whether I have harassed. No. Only “you shall not edit pages which Slim regularly edits – if you do, we define that as wikistalking”. This is a serious attack on the principles of wikipedia.

SlimVirgin’s version of history (above) needs commentary. My comments are interspersed:

::::I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them: + ::::*he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [79];

Xtra said to me “You may see Joyce as an extremist, however, from the way you are talking, he appears far more to the centre than you….Or is free speech only reserved for left wing people? I am sick of this hypocracy (sic)…. I am sick of defending articles about normal people against morons ” Tell me Slim,is that a personal attack or is that a personal attack? Should Xtra apologise?

+ ::::*threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [80] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [81]);

Steth (not Seth) had begun an unsuccessful and, I discovered, secret RfC against me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when I joined wikipedia there was a box at the top of WP:LEAD which said it was policy. That box no longer appears in the history because the history doesn’t store deleted templates. Like I say, I could be wrong. [82]. Also Slim’s link to me being told “numerous” times is one link on 9 May. Are there others Slim?

+ ::::*issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [83];

David Nortman had reverted in bulk numerous times. Other editors had also asked him not to.

+ ::::*issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [84]; + ::::*issues a "second warning" to me [85]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [86]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to me [87];

Ombudsman , like Slim, had reverted more than once and not used the talkpage despite repeated requests to do so

+ ::::*threatens to "report" Justen [88];

What I said was “Justen you have reverted in bulk and will be reported if you do so again without properly considering all opinions calmly on the talk page”

+ ::::*threatens to report Seth as a vandal [89];

What I said was “"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy.” Steth had waged a campaign to delete scientific findings from the article.

+ ::::*Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [90] [91] [92]

Guilty as charged

+ ::::On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited.

Do you seriously argue that I should not edit articles you edit?

Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing,

disappointing? What I said was (and it took a while to track down the correct link, Slim), “I think there are too many admins and I would like to see a code of conduct in place and enforced before new ones are created. Some admins are rude, revert legitimate comments by other editors, block pages they have edited and violate WP policies. My specific reasons for opposing include

• She deleted comments and when asked on her talk page why, did not respond. [22]
• She deleted legitimate comments from her talkpage without explanation[23]
• Deleted more comments from her talkpage.[24]Mccready 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)”

Flo responded and some of her response satisfied me, though not all

+ :::and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ll let this one through to the keeper

• Thank you Slim for finally removing from your list of my faults the gram-positive error I made and acknowledged as soon as it was discovered. I am still not happy that my legitimate criticisms of Slim have been removed from my user page and user talk, but hey ...

• Blnguyen, you misquote me. You don’t mediate against someone. Tell me which of my six points on Animal Rights doesn’t belong. Yes it may appear trivial which is why I couldn’t understand SlimVirgin’s constant reverts and refusal to discuss. Your sarcasm does you no credit.

• Yes I emailed admins; the blocking template suggests I do. Now I’m attacked for doing so. Come on people. Yes I emailed people who appear to bear a grudge, appealing them to look objectively at the facts. I am attacked again for doing that. It takes all types.

• Thanks to those admins who supported me and stood up against groupthink, including those who did so via email. To the others may I ask you to consider that the definition of wikistalking MUST involve harassment; it is simply absurd to ban someone from editing a page when they have had disputes with a person who also edits that page – no matter how you ASSUME they arrived at the page (check SlimVirgin’s actions on chiropractic[93] – perhaps she didn’t know I was a regular editor there, and it was much more than a “tweak” – it sided against me in an ongoing controversy AND without her discussion on the talkpage). Jayjg’s comments on this would be particularly welcome. And to those who find my broad range of interests sarcastically “interesting”, yes the world still has polymaths, or as my father used to say “Jack of all trades, master of none,” and some of them, usually, enjoy editing free encyclopedias.

• Given the good job done by AnnH ♫ 13:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC) on Timothy Usher’s block by Sean Black, I’m a bit disappointed she didn’t spend the same time on my case, though I understand how complex and boring it may be.

• Thanks Friday for your comments. I am no troll. I had come to the same conclusion as you long before your post, as a look at my posts will show.

• Finally, if I may be allowed a small rhetorical flourish, and in the light of those who continue to rely on assumption, this will go down in the annals of wikipedia: the day a user was blocked for removing, correctly, one redundant word from an article which had been edited three hours before (not minutes before as first hastily alleged) by the blocker’s friend who had refused discussion with that user.

• AND May I or may I not make sensible edits, as I do, to pages Slim edits?

Mccready 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You already have your stable of articles that you've wikistalked SlimVirgin to (Lauren Slater, Rat Park, etc.) Don't follow SlimVirgin to any new articles she's recently edited, and stop spamming this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And your reasoning? Are you saying you are banning me from making sensible edits in wikipedia if Slim has edited there previously? If so, by what authority? Please stop abusing me. My post was not spam. Mccready 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I really believe the best thing to do here is for both sides to just drop the issue and get on with life. Mccready, you feel you've been mistreated. I'm sorry for that. Some folks agree with you, some do not, and many feel your past bad behavior is a mitigating factor. This is how it goes here- editors get in disagreements. Part of being a functional editor is to move on and not dwell on the past. If you'll agree to edit like a functional editor, I hope the rest of us can agree to not punish you for making decent edits. For the record, this edit you made is perfectly fine, regardless of who has or has not edited that page before. Talking about article content is perfect- talking about other editors is less helpful. Friday (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Most folks here agree that the block was justified; a tiny minority of the dozens of people Mcready e-mailed do not. Mccready has not been "punished" for making "decent edits", he's been blocked for persistently wikistalking another editor, even after being warned to stop. There are over a million articles on Wikipedia, and Mccready does not need to make even "decent edits" to articles SlimVirgin has just edited, and which Mcready has never edited before. This will be my final statement on the subject; I will not respond to Mccready's lengthy misrepresentations and wikilawyering, nor will I respond to his or your strawman arguments; however, if he wikistalks SlimVirgin to some other article she has recently edited, I will certainly block him again (if someone else hasn't blocked him already). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. FeloniousMonk 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Friday. I hate to harp on, but the fundamental question which goes to the ethos of wikipedia remains open here. Does Jayjg have the right to ban me from making sensible good faith edits to articles Slim edits? If I do, will he block me again? Mccready

I know I will, if Jayjg don't get to it first. You crossed the Rubicon for disruptive activity at the project long before this thread and your rant. FeloniousMonk 15:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I sound like a broken record, but what you guys are talking about is a community ban. If that's what you want, do it. But please don't keep picking on this guy. If he's trying to be a functional editor, he doesn't need people following him around saying "You did bad things last week!". If he's not trying to be a functional editor, this will become clear soon enough. Friday (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said I wouldn't respond, but that was a bit too much. He is not being banned! There are a million articles on Wikipedia, he can edit all of them; he just needs to stay away from the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has recently edited. And no-one is "following him around" saying anything about him. Rather, he is following someone else around, and people are telling him to stop. These are two more fundamentally dishonest arguments, along the lines of the previous strawman argument you made that people were proposing that editors should blocked for making just one edit in isolation (rather, people correctly pointed out that that edit was the culmination of a long campaign of wikistalking and harassment), and the equally dishonest "it was a decent edit" red herring, since the issue was never the quality of the edit itself, but rather the circumstances surrounding it. Please do not use any of these fundamentally dishonest arguments again. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, specific edits of Mccready's are red herring here. He was blocked for wikistalking, not editing. There are 1,129,346 articles at Wikipedia. All Mccready has to do is not show up at the 10 or so that SV is editing at at any given time and he's free to edit the other 1,129,336. It doesn't get any more simple than that. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom defines wikistalking as INCLUDING harrassment. Three cases are listed. In one Jimbo said "Going around pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list" was unacceptable. Have I done that? No. In the second case the harasser placed unacceptable edit summaries "enfeebled minds", "Some professional standards, please!", "A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English", "Low quality of Irish editor". Have I done that? No. In the third case a group of editors "hounded" another editor, dogging his every step. Have I done that. No. I have edited articles I am interested in which Slim is also interested in. I have given reasons on my talkpage during my block and was met with sarcasm, not good faith, for my efforts.

So do we have a new definition of wikistalking, devoid of harassment, invented by Jayjg? Sad for the project if true. I say again, this is fundamental to the wikepedia ethos. That Jayjg should fail to address the arguments is disappointing. Am I cast, horribly, in the mold of a Randian hero by Felonious’s insult that I rant? Have you examined my responses to Slim above, Felonious; if so which parts do you find unacceptable? Slim and I both edit many more articles than the few we intersect on. Does “tweak” to the lead, in the context on ongoing discussion on the talkpage, fit the new definition of wikistalking[94]? I find it sad if you really want to redefine wikistalking in this way and thereby redefine the ethos of the project. The argument that I can edit millions of other articles is unacceptable for the reasons already given. Mccready 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes harassment is in the eye of the victim not the accused. Certainly SV felt harassed. Give it a rest, stay off pages SV is editing, and stop disrupting the project and you have nothing to worry about. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issues F. Do as I say or else? Whatever happened to logic, good faith, and the wikipedia ethos. Are we to have a new definition of harassment too? I feel harassed therefore I am? Mccready 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, give it a rest, stay off pages SV is editing, and stop disrupting the project. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Diligens blocked for 3RR

I blocked Diligens (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for 3RR at Traditionalist Catholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), specifically for repeatedly re-inserting the term traditional Catholic, rather than traditionalist Catholic or Traditional Catholic, per ongoing discussions on the Talk page of that article. Diligens has also repeatedly removed warnings from his Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can go there and see that the admin JzG was the one in violation, but apparently because he was himself partisan in the discussion, he used his powers of blocking to make himself feel right. You don't even have to know the issues to see it there. My explanation fell on deaf ears and I got blocked. The article was in status quo when I came there on April 30th. The discussion was still going after 11 days and JzG edited the article ON THE VERY POINT OF DISPUTE, making a edit of what was well-accepted even all the way back to January. JzG, as an admin, does not know the simple rules and is abusing his powers as an admin. It is like a citizen who points a gun at a robber, and the police take away the citizen. Any admin should know that in an RV skirmish, the person who FIRST makes the violation, is the ONLY one who violates the 3RR rule, NOT the citizen who is RVING to correct the violation. I got blocked as that citizen. Incidentally, JzG put in an RFC at the beginning of that discussion. And his summary in the RFC shows that he didn't even understand what the objective of the discussion was about, which may be the reason why he later violated by editing the article out of step with the discussion. (Diligens 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

I count five reverts, violation of 3RR, endorse. A grammar change is not obvious vandalism Will (^E_@) T 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't a grammar change. There is no grammar or spelling book that supports it. The very edit was conceptual and the point of contention and no consensus was attained yet. Flaunted by admin. (Diligens 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Removing Warnings from someone else's User:Talk page is a violation, but not removing it from one's own page. Once a person reads something on his own page, he is free to remove it. The above admin was given a promotion he was not ready for. (Diligens 16:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Actually, you aren't allowed to remove vandalism warnings. And you're getting worked up over a single letter? Will (^E_@) T 16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM includes "Removing warnings for vandalism or other issues from one's talk page may also be considered vandalism." --pgk^(talk) 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Phone number of Admin

User:Jumphoop has posted the home telephone number of an admin that I have reverted. Can an admin please delete it from the history? - Ganeshk (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do people get admins phone numbers, it's really bizarre... Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins who aren't as close to the vest with their personal info as they should be, and Wikistalkers with too much time on their hands, probably... RadioKirk talk to me 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of us have been online long enough that we've left an indelible digital trail. Before the Eternal September, my .plan had my name, phone, even my address, and it could be accessed by anyone who knew my email. I gave up any chance of anonymity a long time ago. It's just not an option for some of us. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And the people who have been online that long have a greatee tendacy to become admins.Geni 03:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

70.27.45.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He keeps adding factually incorrect info to Algonquin College and refuses to cite sources. Ardenn 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now removing tags and blanking sections of pages such as this. Ardenn 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48h for repeated violation of WP:RS while refusing to discuss with other editors. This should probably go to WP:AIV, by the way. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The return of the permanently banned User:Irate

Admin User:Samuel Blanning has asked that I place a note here, as he has banned blocked the IP User:84.9.210.236 (amongst others) as a sock of User:Irate, but is not familiar with the case history.

User:Irate who was hardbanned by Jimbo Wales, and has had multiple sockpuppets such as User:IanDavies and User:Son of Paddy's Ego has come back using the IP's User:84.9.210.236, User:87.75.131.249 and User:84.9.193.224 to edit articles on British counties, on which he has a fairly extreme view, after User:Lancsalot made a few changes (which admittedly didn't follow the naming conventions, but could have been quickly rectified). When challenged he produced several personal attacks and created a vandal category into which he placed three users, including myself.

The main evidence I can offer for identification purposes is from User:David_Gerard's block log here; if you look at the bottom he blocked a lot of IP's in the same 84.9.x.x range for being his sockpuppets. The spelling mistakes, frequent attacks and style of editing are absolutely identical when compared them to the contributions of User:IanDavies, for example here and here and the anon contributions [95], [96] and [97]. Most admins who have dealt with this user previously (eg User:David Gerard, User:Morwen, User:Matt Crypto, User:JzG) would confirm his identity.

More background on this editor, look at his posts on wikien-l which led up to his ban.

The charge sheet just for today reads as WP:3RR, WP:NPA and editing as a banned user; it would be useful for other admins to verify this block and keep an eye out for further activity. Aquilina 14:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• To make something clear, I only blocked 84.9.210.236 as the most recently-used IP for a month (no-one else was using that IP). I also deleted Category:County Watch Vandal and permanently blocked the sock that created it. I didn't claim to ban anyone - the distinction between banning and blocking is quite important in this case. I haven't blocked the other two IPs for now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • My apologies, correction made. Stressful day. Aquilina 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This user keeps coming back with new IPs and socks. So far he's used:

• 84.9.210.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.75.131.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.75.130.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.75.131.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and
• 84.9.193.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Can someone with the technical know-how block his entire range? All of these IPs have had no previous contributions, so collateral damage is unlikely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism is ongoing, see 84.9.210.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); any help with the IP range block would be very gratefully received. Aquilina 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know how to do it, and I can do it, but I don't understand why to. Could you explain what is going on more clearly? Prodego ^talk 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This editor, who should be blocked on sight after his indefinite ban, has spent today making repeated personal attacks on editors who have challenged him [98], [99] [100]...etc. Each time one IP is blocked, he comes back on a new one and replaces all his edits - look at the contribs above, and then at User:84.9.195.184 and User:84.9.210.134, his latest two IPs. At the moment this is having to be cleaned up each time he reoffends on a case by case basis. As all the edits come from two ranges, it would be far quicker to put a shortish block on the ranges concerned. Without the block, there's not much other option - it's not a case for AIV, and AN & AN/I are massively congested. Aquilina 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He started yesterday morning [101] and the most recent edit I know of was this evening, 24 hours later [102]. So no, he hasn't stopped, we need to block his range to stop him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for three hours. Prodego ^talk 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How big a range are we talking about, and are there good contributors coming from it? Phil Sandifer 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

/22 (1024 addresses). According to the above users "collateral damage is unlikely". Prodego ^talk 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the block should just be 1 hour, do you think I should change to that? Prodego ^talk 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the vandalism has occured over a period of 48 hours so far, I'm actually surprised the block wasn't for longer. There's a good chance he'll be asleep for most of it (I assume he's English and it's 11.30pm right now). I appreciate that a range block of 1,024 IPs has very significant potential for collateral damage, but none of the IPs used so far have had a single contribution before Irate started using it. I can continue blocking individual IPs when he returns, of course, but when it takes him about 20 minutes to switch IPs, what does it matter whether they're blocked for 1 hour or 1 month? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Range blocks and sprotect are the solution. Block enough ranges and he'll eventually have to reboot 10 or 20 times to get a working IP, which is quite discouraging. Sprotecting the pages he's editing means that even if he does, he still can't get his stuff into articles, which is also discouraging. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also blocked his sockpuppets User:RunningMan and User:TrackInspector. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The following dynamic ranges have been used:

CIDR	Range
87.75.130.0/23	(87.75.130.0 - 87.75.131.255)
84.9.210.0/23	(84.9.210.0 - 84.9.211.255)
84.9.192.0/22	(84.9.192.0 - 84.9.195.255)

These might be possible to use, but have not been:

CIDR	Range
84.9.196.0/22	(84.9.196.0 - 84.9.199.255)
84.9.200.0/22	(84.9.200.0 - 84.9.203.255)
84.9.204.0/22	(84.9.204.0 - 84.9.207.255)

Prodego ^talk 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Christian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) vandalized and left protected

This userbox used by hundreds of users has been vandalized by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs) and protected in the vandalized state by Freakofnurture (talk · contribs). An userbox of the size of a full article (full of heave calibre POV) is obvious vandalism to me. BTW, none of the two vandals uses this userbox. To add insult to injury, one of them added a rotating crucifix as the image (now deleted). A user Rexmorgan (talk · contribs) who tried to revert this obvious vandalism has been blocked for 24h by Freakofnurture (talk · contribs). Friendly Neighbour 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to call anything here "obvious vandalism", but it does look like a silly edit war. FWIW, Tony Sidaway has dealt with this in a sensible way, putting the template back to a simple version and unprotecting. Friday (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not obvious? A userbox with the height of my screen? C'mon. Look the definition in Wikipedia:Userboxes: "A userbox is a small coloured box that allows users to add small messages on their user pages". Anyway, thanks Tony! Friendly Neighbour 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the other version was accurate :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree this was absurd, I wouldn't call it anything worse than a content dispute. He certainly meant well, at the very least. --InShaneee 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A classic case of the wrong version :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was no mere vandalism. Changing a message hundreds of people have already chosen for their userpages is megavandalism of hundreds userpages. I believe long blocks are the only appropriate penalties for such mega-vandals. Friendly Neighbour 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Megavandalism, huh? The problem is, if people had just subst'd their templates, they wouldn't have known about this at all. --InShaneee 18:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is hundreds of people did't. Can they be vandalized because they never heard of "subst" (like me until very recently) or simply preferred the uncluttered versions of their pages (also like me)? Maybe we should also replace our userpages with uploaded screenshots of them, not to be the 3RR guilty party when a vandal gets the idea of a "content dispute" on our pages ;-) Friendly Neighbour 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This reeks of POINT and it certainly isn't civil. Furthermore, I am astounded that someone would actually block for this case of 3RR and not block Cyde and Gmaxwell. You shouldn't get to edit war by virtue of having one more person than the other side and get away with it.

“ You reverted the rotating crucifix. I do not understand. That change was made to make the image more NPOV by showing it from all angles. --Cyde Weys 08:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) ”

Seriously, this was wildly inappropriate, disruptive, not done in good faith, etc even if I think it was hilarious. Kotepho 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur here. I thought it was funny too, and I am the one that got blocked over it. However, "funny" is not really appropriate when it is affecting many users on The Project. With regard to InShaneee's comment - subst is not, as far as I know, official policy or even suggested guideline regarding userboxes at this point, so it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have already worked together to come up with that solution to the problem. Rexmorgan 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not have been the best move, but I still wouldn't call it vandalism. First of all, the simple fact is that without transclusion, you're open to whatever happens to the template, like it or not. Secondly, although the gif was a bit over the top, the new text was NPOV, and as silly as it came out, I don't think it's something he should be punished for; rather, he should simply be overruled on the talk page. --InShaneee 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Every time I see one of these userbox squabbles, it makes me want to tear out my eyes. Whether intended or not, they always end up waltzing with WP:POINT. Keep the blasted thing at Tony's version. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "vandalism" necessarily, so much as a massive WP:DICK move. These are admins behaving like little children - very disappointing. Isn't there an encyclopedia around here you could be writing, guys? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell started it again. This time a "compromise version". I reverted him once. I would prefer a better solution. Anyone ready to block the vandal? Friendly Neighbour 19:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a talk page there. These things CAN be discussed. Blocking isn't always the answer. Neither is reverting a 3 word change and calling it 'massive vandalism'. When two users refuse to discuss a change, BOTH are at fault. --InShaneee 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking an article page. We are talking a message that multiple users link to their userpages (as userbiox policy allows them to) and some other users (who do not use it) want changed. The outsiders can always create their own template if they want. This is the difference between an article about a person/thing/idea and a template where a dissatisfied user can always create a new one. There is no need of template compromises. Really. Friendly Neighbour 20:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. You do not own that template, nor does anyone else. It may be freely edited just like anything else here. Compromise is not only needed, it's expected. --InShaneee 20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not get my point my point. You can't "own" an article exactly because there can be only one on a given subject. You actually can "own" a template because anyone can create a new one (for example adding a number to the name). Friendly Neighbour 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't own ANYTHING, period. Templates (such as userboxes) included. If you want your own userbox, subst it, or just create it wholly on your userpage. Once it's put in the Template space, it's subject to all the usual policies. --InShaneee 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Job Friendly Neighbour, in your haste to defend against evil you managed to revert text suggested by someone who appears to hold your position. As InShaneee said above, compromise is a core aspect of wikipedia. Please discontinue your allegations of bad faith and join the discussion rather than attacking. --Gmaxwell 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to qualify, reverting discussed, agreed upon changes can be considered vandalism. --InShaneee 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Holy War

Saying this as a non-religious person, I am both appalled and offended at some of the actions being made by two administrators, Gmaxwell and Cyde at Template talk:User Christian. This far oversteps being disruptive to make a WP:POINT. They clearly have no interest in this template other than to offend, disrupt, and probably see to it that the template is ultimately deleted as a result of their offensive disruption. 207.200.116.138 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AGF as soon as possible, please. --InShaneee 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He should assume good faith when someone writes a whole article inside a userbox, ruining many userpages? There was no good faith, just admins vandalizing. Lapinmies 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want anyone being able to change what appears on your userpage then you oughn't be transcluding templates. Please read up on WP:OWN while you're at it. Also note that calling an established Wikipedian a vandal because you disagree with them is far, far beyond the pale. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The point was not that they can't be changed, it was that they should not contain a whole article. Lapinmies 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no guideline stating that. As I said before, if anyone had a problem with it, the talk page is the first place it should be brought. --InShaneee 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no guideline stating that you should not stick peas in your nose. Lapinmies 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And I, along with many of my fellow users, strongly support other user's right to do so, along with anything else they may choose to do outside of wikipedia, where we have no control over them. --InShaneee 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled that anyone thinks this comment is anything other than trolling. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So we can assume good faith of someone who (as an obvious joke) replaces a userbox with an article, but we can't assume good faith of someone who considers that action a violation of WP:POINT? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We can assume good faith in EVERYONE, if I'm reading the policy correctly. --InShaneee 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was sort of my point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled that anyone is calling an online content dispute a "Holy War". Millions of people have died in real Holy Wars. That's like calling the New Years Userbox deletion "The Userbox Holocaust". --Cyde Weys 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• For those late to the party, this is where it started. Thatcher131 20:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See Flame war#Holy wars --Carnildo 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that Mackensen has speedy-deleted the template under T1, I'm sure that everything will calm down. (rolls eyes) Everybody, brace for impact — it's going to be New Year's all over again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was dividing people in a big way...I'd consider that 'divisive'. --InShaneee 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

... nnnno it wasn't. Cyde and Gmaxwell having fun with the content at the expense of everyone who put it on their page was being divisive. There is absolutely nothing divisive about the content that was at {{User Christian}}. JDoorjam Talk 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah — the only divisiveness came about when Cyde and Gmaxwell started their joke. The same thing could be done to any userbox, not just political or religious ones. To take an example at random, Template:User male could be replaced with an essay on biological sex differences and the sociological deconstruction of gender. (Of course, I wouldn't do that, because unlike some people I respect WP:POINT.) I really think this was ill-considered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which, of course, comes back to the issue of userboxes. Should they be wiped off the face of the earth? No. Should they be subst:'d? Yes. After all, this is an encyclopaedia, and saying "This User is a Christian" is unencyclopaedic (although I find Cyde's version still too restrictive in its definition). As for size restrictions on userboxes - have a look at the one at the bottom of David Gerard's page. Now that's a userbox. Guettarda 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I agree that userboxes should be subst:ed. I just don't think that this is the way to go about it. If we're going to subst: all userboxes, then let's formulate an appropriate policy and do it. This maneuver (starting an argument, and then deleting the template because it's divisive) smacks to me of pushing someone into the mud and then condemning him for being dirty. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For historical purposes, it was RexM's fault for editing it to say "This user claims to be a Christian". Having said that, despite how hilarious the Gmaxwell & Cyde version of the userbox was (I miss the animated crucifix; I'm actually considering using the userbox in my userspace, although I really am a Christian), they were definitely violating WP:POINT. I won't go as far as WP:VANDAL, but this was definitely disruption (even if meant well, and done in an absolutely hilarious manner). Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Cyde and Gmaxwell why they thought a userbox was an appropriate place for an essay on Christianity, with a big animated crucifix gif, no less. Thatcher131 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is all well and good, but now that the userbox has been axed, shouldn't this debate move on to WP:DRVU? –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just like to point out that we still have Template:User Catholic, Template:User Protestant, Template:User Muslim, Template:User Buddhist, Template:User Jewish, and probably a lot of other ones. If "This user is a Christian" is division, then all of these are, too. Either we need to delete them all, or an infobox saying "This user is a Christian" needs to be reinstated. — BrianSmithson 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to let folks know that I've substed the userbox on all the user pages it was used on. I can do the others too, if people want them gone from Template space. I've expressed my opinion on the edit war itself already on the WikiEN mailing list, so I won't repeat it here. It's not particularly polite, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what should happen, frankly. Substed code on a userpage isn't subject to anyone's petty whims. I can't say I'm happy about the last 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've listed the template at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates#Template:User Christian. The debate can move there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No legit T1. Nothing to debate.Geni 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Although the debate over whether the template should be kept on WP has moved elsewhere I think there is a larger problem that has been glossed over: Cyde and Gmaxwell were irresponsible and created a debate unnecessarily. Their claims that the changes were made to the templates out of "good faith" to preserve NPOV are laughable and I think that as admins they should know better. Can the fact that they seem to be getting out of this unscathed indicate that other admins are endorsing this sort of thing?Reverie 07:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

True jesus (talk · contribs)

I first came across this user a couple of weeks ago when he was moving True Jesus Church to multiple absurd locations and creating POV forks of the article, to satirize and criticize the church, which he continued despite several polite warnings from User:Jose77 and myself. He then went on a rampage repeatedly blanking his talk page of the warnings despite the requests of many that he stop. Now he has begun trolling my talk page, Jose77's talk page, User:Hoary's talk page, and, given his history of attacking everyone who contacts him about his behavior, I'm sure he'll soon begin attacking User:Prodego. Beyond that, his username is also potentially inflammatory and quite inappropriate. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I might also add that he has been vandlizing several userpages, including my own. So far, I've seen only vandalism from this account. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a disruptive account. I didn't see anything going on that looked like trying to write an encyclopedia, but I place this notice here in case some other admin wishes to review the block. Syrthiss 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever disputed an indefinite blocking, and I am sure as hell not going to start with this one! --Cyde Weys 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAA, and I don't think the username issue to be altogether significant, but I do think it's clear that the user's principal purpose is disruption, and so I think an indef block is likely appropriate. Since the user is a relatively new user, I accept that he/she was acting in good faith in moving the True Jesus Church article (although one worries that the user registered expressly in order to make such move, in view of the user name selected), thinking Wikipedia to be endorsing the church (when, in actuality, we simply use the name the church ascribes to itself), but his/her subsequent actions show, at best, an inability to work constructively with others and to learn Wikipedia's policies, especially with respect to consensus. Perhaps an uninvolved admin should post a note to the user page to the effect that if the user agrees to comport his/her behavior with Wikipedia's policies, the user may be unblocked, with the caveat that any further vandalism/trolling/page blanking will result in an indef block. Joe 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Syrthiss. I'm usually adamently opposed to indefinite blocks, but I think it's quite clear that his account existed from day one to troll the True Jesus Church article (given the username), and he's made quite clear that he does not want to contribute positively. I was thinking more along the lines of a 48hr block just to make it known that we're serious, but I'm certainly not going to object to this decision! AmiDaniel (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Before he created that disruptive account, this user was already persistently vandalising TJC articles (especially the True Jesus Church in India article & talk page) under the IP addresses:

128.113.18.225, 128.113.18.228, 128.113.18.207, 128.113.64.65, 128.113.64.29, 128.113.64.63.

-- Joseph, 05:28 Friday 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks legit to me. I'll go tag the sockpuppets, and we might consider blocking those accounts too, though I'm still not sure we want to consider this block as an indefinite "ban." He still might some day give up his past and decide to contribute effectively, and blocking the IPs may cause unnecessary collateral damage. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:I'M THE MOTHERFUCKING JUGGERNAUT BITCH!!!

This user has been blocked for their username and they are repeatedly attempting to edit, filling up the Blocklist with autoblocks. DOS vandal? Anything we can do about this? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Not really.Geni 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You could reset/blank their password....hopefully, seeing as how this is the 4th time in the last hour I've hit one of their autoblocks--64.12.116.65 03:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You could suggest on the talk page that, without a comma, this username implies that the user is either the juggernaut bitch (i.e., an unstoppable bitch), or the bitch of The Juggernaut (sounds painful), and that they consider the syntax of the next moniker they choose. Beyond that I got nothin'. JDoorjam Talk 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction to the above: the name indicates is that it belongs to the female dog that is a juggernaut of having sexual intercourse with its own mother (or some other mother). Everyone needs a talent, I suppose. Geogre 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction: IT refers to The Juggernaut Bitch (now defunct) it's a nonnotable amateur video that got famous for a few days. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I found myself forced to unblock the Juggernaut, along with a crapload of autoblocks, in order to release yet again the very unfortunate AOL user User:WBardwin, who's had precious little opportunity to edit in the past few days. See User talk:WBardwin. See my recent unblocking activity here!I did the same with another AOL block the other day, and I believe a few other admins have done the same. If anybody has a better solution than undoing those autoblocks by hand, and especially any suggestion for avoiding letting the vandal walk free, please share. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

Except you didn't actually unblock the user (nor In my opinion should you), you unblocked !! not !!!, so it was just the autoblocks which did it, and that really is the only option that I'm aware of. What I don't get is why the AOL users don't enmasse complain to AOL --pgk^(talk) 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! Geogre 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (a victim of such "collateral" damage as a victim of Netscape ISP)

Yet again with admin telephone numbers

FWIW, a number purporting to be that of Alkivar is in an edit summary in this page's history (viz., here). Joe 02:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This has gotten out of hand. Wikipedia needs to take specific legal action against this user, as its obvious that they're not going to stop on their own. Daniel Davis 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone done a CU to determine if it's coming from a static IP/IP range? --InShaneee 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's dynamic: Bell Canada. Prodego ^talk 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I fully support initiating legal action here. Can Danny do something about this? --InShaneee 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what legal action you suggest be taken. There's almost surely nothing illegal about one's posting the telephone number of an admin; at worst, such posting is in contravention of Wikipedia policies (and, to be sure, possibly of Bell Canada's terms of service). I don't think postings such as that relative to Alkivar are particularly egregious, inasmuch as he provides his full name and city of residence on his user page; it's not wholly unreasonable to assume that thence one will find one's telephone number. That is in no way to countenance the posting of the number which is surely against policy (which policy exists for important reasons), but only to say that, notwithstanding that there is no legal action to be taken, I'd not support the use of WF resources for any such action. Joe 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. The posting of unauthorized personal information by a third party is against several US (and one would assume) Canadian laws concerning privacy, and is actionable. Daniel Davis 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As applies to telephone numbers, IMHO, you're mistaken. Someone probably should remove the egregious edit from the page's history, but an admin will need to tackle that. Joe 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried delete/restore; page history's too big, it times out RadioKirk talk to me 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God, NEVER try to delete/restore a page this big. Talk to a developer on IRC, but NEVER try to delete/restore a page this big. Ral315 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the rate at which posts are made on this page, it might not even be necessary to remove the edit. It's almost off the top 50 as it is, so it's quite unlikely that a prank caller will stumble across it (the user's information is also on his userpage, so the risk is probably higher that a user would get his num there, rather than off the ANI history). As for the legalities, I'm not sure of exact laws, but I know such actions go against Wikipedia's privacy policy. It's probably not necessary to bring the guy to go court, but a threatening letter would probably be in order as this is happening again and again and again... AmiDaniel (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Google and others provide phone numbers, so I really doubt there's anything illegal here. Further, we ought to observe NLT for the good guys as well as bad. However, Bell Canada's ISP surely has an abuse account, surely has procedures for dealing with users who do this stuff. We ought to be contacting them and explaining the vandalism being done and how it amounts to DOS if done in a particular way. Geogre 11:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't. Google uses a database of numbers provided to them by whichever phone company the individual signs up with- at sign time the person has to explicitly and clearly state that they want their number published in the phone book (which is then at Google's request given to them). Giving out personal, private telephone information (or any other information) without the individual's consent is a violation of several harassment laws, at least in the US. Not sure about Canada. I know this because I did telemarketing for a while, and they made SURE we knew both the laws AND the loopholes regarding personal info. Daniel Davis 12:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed some usernames in this category that ought not to exist. I know that normally users can't be deleted, but is there a way for developers to delete these users or change usernames of the sockpuppets? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody help Johnleemk?

Would somebody here be able to mentor Johnleemk? As the result of an arbitration case, he posted these words on a talk page: "Lou_franklin is banned from editing this article... The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." [103]

Since it explicitly said "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", I did. As a result he blocked me for 48 hours! He apparently made a mistake posting the wording because he changed it to "the user is prevented" after he blocked me. Obviously since the talk page said I am "not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", it is not appropriate to ban me for doing so!

Other users [104] suggested to him that he "ask for clarification at the relevant ArbCom page" and "I think it is advisable to ask clarification" and "since the template was misleading, the block should probably be lifted", but he flatly refused saying "there is nothing to clarify... Specific rulings overrule a general template." I asked him to post a link to the Wikipedia policy that states that. He could not provide one, and responded by saying "you should know better than to rely on a general template".

This admin is making up rules as he goes. If an admin posts that it's OK for a user to add to the discussion, it's really not reasonable for the same admin to block the user for doing so. Is there an admin here who would be able to explain that to John? Lou franklin 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Something wonky is going on here. Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is supposed to be under a seven day block for violating the terms of his personal attack parole. I don't see any reason why he should be unblocked right now – when Johnleemk blocked Lou, Johnleemk cleared the previous block before reblocking – but Lou has been able to edit this page and User talk:Jimbo Wales].

Can anybody figure out why this block isn't sticking? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please address the actual issue? Lou franklin 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying unblocking, then reblocking again. --InShaneee 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I was unfairly blocked for over 48 hours. Maybe the system has a fairness quotient built in Lou franklin 03:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And maybe you're wikilawyering. The arbcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin case pretty clearly says (in the first remedy) that you are banned from the article AND the talk page. That Johnleemk put up the wrong template is regrettable, but the arbcom findings, in my view, overrule minor procedural errors like that. You need to stay out of that article AND its talk page, indefinitely. It would also be helpful if you didn't post long rants about the sad decline of Wikipedia on the talk pages of all and sundry, but we can't have everything. As for the topic, I don't see where Johnleemk needs any help, he's doing fine. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be thinking that since John told him he could edit that page, it meant he was free to do as he pleased (including calling other editors sexist slurs). I think it was rather big of John to give him a chance in the first place, and he most certainly did the right thing when Lou stepped way out of line again. I've tried unblocking/reblocking Lou, hopefully it'll stick. --InShaneee 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has shown nothing but bad-faith, and I endorse this block. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Threatened to get me desysopped if I didn't rollback his disruption on ArbCom members' talk pages. Will (^E_@) T 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Support mentoring, Johnleemk is clearly new and inexperienced with this admin thing that he's supposed to be doing, and clearly needs an experienced mentor to help guide him along this path. [105] --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're all newbs to me :) Raul654 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And me too. :p (Although I'm definitely a newb to Raul -- when I arrived he was already a juggernaut on Wikipedia.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We're all newbies. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a mentor or anything but I don't mind having a go at talking to him - do you need to be official to do this sort of thing? Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of laws

Jurisprudence has a concept called conflict of laws.

I've noticed that this concept and some other legal concepts are not well understood in wikipedia, including by arbcom. But that is to be expected in a young project and one which inevitbably reflects the power of appointing members to arbcom. Nonetheless, in this case, and even if Lou is gaming the system, the rule of law should be respected and applied.

Since I'm a legal positivist in my thinking and training I argue that the law is applied to suit the outcome desired by those making the decision. It would be better though, in this case, to give the benefit of the doubt. The 48 hour block was thus unjustified.

As to the 7 day block. Excessive. Homo is derogatory, yes but not as derogatory as some words. Lou should be unblocked and templates should be improved.

To put the matter beyond doubt, my comments should not be read in any way for support of his views. Mccready 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Laws occurs when two different nations have different laws, that contradict each other. This is not within a country. Same here, this is within wikipedia, and there it does not apply. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we don't do legalities here. We go (or should go) by common sense and the good of the project. Friday (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:NOT a micronation. We don't make laws; we make policies and principles and expect editors to use their common sense instead of lawyer their way out of trouble. Also, I find this emphasis on the homo thing strange; to me, it was secondary to the massive bad faith Lou placed in his post to Jimbo's talk. As the arbitration committee insisted that special attention be paid to bad faith, and in light of Lou's recent violation of his article ban (I've already explained on his talk why he can't use the template as an excuse), the 7 day block is justified. (Even if it wasn't and we want to hew to policy, bear in mind that the arbitration committee set the maximum block at 7 days -- if Lou even slightly deviates from what he's supposed to do, any admin can wham him as hard as they like provided the block does not exceed 1 week. I was lenient with Lou the first time, so the second time round...) Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you will (law, rule, principle, policy, guideline, "spirit not the letter", norm etc), in the last analysis you have a system of power where some are more powerful than others, yet WP is still a normative community and that means "laws". Whether you interpret them as black letter law or as spirit, as a positivist, I say the outcome is identical. And in any normative community unless you have consistency and justice, unless you temper power with good judgement and impartiality you will undermine the community. John, your block edit of a week only mentioned "homophobic epithet", not the display of bad faith which I agree was deserving of a block even allowing for rhetoric. I'm still inclined to think the penalty on the harsh side. "Wham him as hard as they like" might not be the attitude to enourage a reformed editor. And by the way, conflict of laws doesn't only apply to nations, Kim. If I understand the norms here correctly, would it be possible for John to express willingness for another admin, someone less closely involved, to remake the decision? Mccready 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

See above. There's a lot of support for his actions from a lot of uninvolved admins. --InShaneee 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall using either "homophobic" or "epithet" at all where Lou was involved. I can't remember the last time I used the word "homophobic" (probably in some off-Wikipedia irrelevant debate about homosexuality), and the last time I used "epithet" was in literature class. My summary for the block only referred to a violation of the personal attack parole, and my message to Lou focused on bad faith with the "homo" comment added as a finishing touch. The basis of the block was never the "homo" comment, and certainly never was "homophobic epithet". Johnleemk | Talk 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The legal jargon leaves me cold. Lou violated two of the conditions set by ArbCom, received a week's block (John referred to this as "the full one week", personally I would have thought the maximum was two weeks for two violations) and consensus is behind the blocking admin's interpretation. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

John, it appears you may be in error here. The system records you as using the phrase "homophobic epithet" in the edit summary [106]. Could someone else have had access to your logon? Sam, what I meant to say is whether you apply "law" or "spirit of law" the outcome is identical. As a relatively new user I'd appreciate an answer to my question as to whether WP culture permits John to step back and allow someone else to remake the decision? Mccready 04:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No other admin -- not one -- has disgreed with his decision, and every one of them has the ability to override it. No other other admin -- not one -- has overridden his decision, but have in fact tried to help him implement it better. All the irrelevant pseudo-legal arguments you can concoct don't change this basic fact. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh...the title of the section I was editing was "User:Lou franklin and homophobic epithet". I did not use the word "homophobic epithet"; the complainant (Cleduc) did. (My edit summary for this edit will be "Conflict of laws" because that's the title of this section, but I'm certainly not using that phrase at all.) My rationale for the block has been clearly stated, and the "homophobic epithet" did not form the bulk of its basis. Anyhow, WP culture discourages wheel warring unless there's consensus that the admin just went bonkers. There's consensus that I didn't go bonkers, and asking someone else to undo my block and then redo it is just process wonkery. (Incidentally, someone else did block Lou after it turned out my 1-week block didn't take effect, so your request has already been fulfilled in a sense.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John for the explanation of the edit summary. Sorry if there was any unwarranted imputation. I've learnt something. Cheers. Mccready 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice

Sorry to troubel with a "trivial" issue, but I'm trying to avoid being blocked. I have been criticised on several occasions for breaking process: my understanding is that editing one's own talk page to remove "negative" comments constitutes breach of process. My problem is that my talk page has been edited by someone else, not at my behest, and in doing so has removed "critical" commentary. On the other hand, I do not wish to revert this without some authority, in case this is treated as improperly reverting a senior user's edit. Advice, please. I have ceased any editing on Wiki for the time being, just in case. -- Simon Cursitor 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? Also note: there are no "senior users". We're all equal here. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted his edit, as he was removing the section because the DRV was over, I guess (though it seems odd that it was an account that wasn't even in the conversation, and considering socks were mentioned...), but anyway, talk page messages are generally kept (and [[WP:ARCHIVE|archived when the page gets full), rather than removing sections that aren't necessary anymore. As it was your talk, people shouldn't be removing comments anyway, especially if it's not their own. --07:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

PS3 edit war

PlayStation 3 has been the subject of an edit war over whether to use a free image Image:Sony PlayStation 3.jpg or a fair use one Image:Ps3stock.jpg. I protected the article recently to stop the war, but soon after unprotection somebody uploaded Image:PS3 Large Final.jpg, which is a slightly smaller version of the original fair use image, only it's been tagged as being CC-BY instead. I find this claim highly dubious, and have deleted both the fair use image and the almost-certainly-a-lie image (WP:AGF only goes so far). As far as I'm concerned, the issue was quite clear: a "fair use" claim can't override a quite sufficient image simply because the FU image is purdy, and re-uploading a FU image with a CC-BY tag is inappropriate. However, I await the community's brickbats, should that be the result. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And now Dodgyc (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images "© Sony, all rights reserved" with CC-BY ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what you've done. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. Kill copyright violations with fire. Warn repeat offenders, then block. Nandesuka 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous bot?

68.34.13.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think I found the bot owner--152.163.100.65 15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was right behind you finding that, and edit conflicted with you trying to delete my post here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Is Cyde claiming ownership of the bot? The bot is replacing {{fact}} with {{citation needed}}. Has the community decided that this is a template requiring replacement? - there's nothing at Template talk:Citation needed. I'm not asking for a reinstatement of the block, but what's going on? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it's a template redirect, so what it's doing is basically good, but I don't know why he's running it incognito. I've asked at User talk:Cyde. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  I'm thinking that was a goof, based on this, looks like 68.34.13.103 (talk · contribs) is supposed to be Cydebot (talk · contribs)--152.163.100.65 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again...

Seems like Peter Ruckman is once again, editing his own barely notable biography--152.163.100.65 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobaboba

I just permenantly blocked this user who was doing classic Willy on Wheels page move vandalism, random pages moved to "... on wheels". He (she?) has been editing since February and with no vandalism history. They are asking to be reinstated, claiming "my brother did it". I've told them to go away for 24hrs at least. Any thoughts on whether we should give them a second chance? DJ Clayworth 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My thought is "absolutely not." Nandesuka 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest 24 hour block, then watch carefully and reblock indef as soon as another "on wheels" page move is made. Kimchi.sg 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there have been wonky things coming from this account today. Meddling with other users' reports at WP:ABUSE and impersonating other users together with the page moves warrant not lifting the indef block you've imposed. Kimchi.sg 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cro..Scream

Cro..Scream (talk · contribs) has admitted in two AFD pages that he is creating hoax articles. This on top of his repeated edit warring and possible sock puppet voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Donahue makes me wonder if a day or so time out might not be in order. I won't do it without support, however. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'd support that, so long as a good sized explination of how wrong what he was doing is accompanies it. --InShaneee 19:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'd support it too. Deliberately creating hoax articles is a form of vandalism IMO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Sure. Deliberate hoaxing is vandalism. "I know the policies, but I'm having fun" = Troll. Geogre 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I gave him a warning, we'll see if he does it again. He has several warnings on his Talk page already. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is, by the way, an RFCU on the matter located here. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is again evading his indefinite block as 216.194.2.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [107] for evidence). Can an administrator block this IP please? Thanks! Demiurge 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• And back again as 216.194.2.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([108]). Can someone enforce the ArbCom ban please? Demiurge 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat removing sockpuppet warning from user page

Merecat, who was found via CheckUser to be a 'likely sockpuppet of Rex071404', ([109], [110], [111]) has refused to acknowledge the finding and has deleted the sockpuppet warnings from his user page. As Mackensen said:

Likely than the Anon Texan and merecat are the same user. It's patently obvious that merecat is evading his block to spam talk pages (including mine, damn it all). Based on talk page evidence, I wouldn't disagree that they're tied to BigDaddy777, but we don't have records going back to October. [edit] Actually, I'm not sure about the BigDaddy connection. But he and the Anon Texan are definitely the same user. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Likely that he's also Rex071404 (talk * contribs). Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the limit to this community's tolerance of outright trolls circumventing policy? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please tell Ryan to actually read the policy page before continuing along this line of inquisition. See WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.". Also, there is no such user a "User:AnonTexan" and Ryan knows that. The phrase "AnonTexan" was invented by another editor and is not a user account. Merecat 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Put a space in the name. You have been proven to be the Anon Texan. 'Likely' means beyond a reasonable doubt. And respond to the RfAr and the numerous users who have asked for the truth. Your behavior is more of the same from Rex... trolling and a lack of good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I restate: Please tell Ryan to actually read the policy page before continuing along this line of inquisition. See WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.". Also, there is no such user a "User:AnonTexan" and Ryan knows that. The phrase "AnonTexan" was invented by another editor and is not a user account. Merecat 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The accusation happened more than 7 days ago and the tags can therefore be removed per policy. Merecat is not blocked. Checkuser was not conclusive. Ryan is abusing the tags and has been harrassing Merecat. Ryan should be warned about abusing the tags and blocked if necessary. --Tbeatty 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Anon Texan is a redirect which was created by User:Jonathunder. I did not create the user account User:Anon Texan. Merecat 18:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser was clear. Likely socks of Rex and Anon texan. The timing of the accusation is irrelevant. And duplicating posts is disrespectful and dismissive of the points raised in response. More trollery. You are a likely sock of a blocked user, evading an ArbComm ban. I suggest it is you who is in clear violation of numerous policies. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag used by Ryan clearly said "suspected" and as per WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.", was removed. In any case, 7 days from now, according to policy, I can remove it regardless of whay Ryan argues here. So, if we disagree on WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.", I'm happy to wait 7 days before removing it from my user page. Merecat 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You may not have read the policy, but Checkuser confirmed you as a likely sock. The tags (which you have violated 3RR by removing) were appropriate and your behavior is just more grist for the RfAr. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR on my user page, but I am reasonably sure you are harassing me. Merecat 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You have thus far refused to answer the Checkuser, or other editors asking you in good faith. Trollsome behavior. My conduct (tagging you as a sock) is hardly harrassment. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Informed opinion posted on my talk page by other users informs me that User:RyanFreisling is in error demanding answers of me. I ask that Ryan be advised to leave me be. He/she could do better making actual edits to articles, rather than trying to gin up complaints against me. Merecat 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, there is no current sockpuppet accusation and there is no block. Therefore it has not been concluded that Merecat is a sockpuppet. Further, since the accounts he is accused of being a sock puppet of have been inactive since November, it is not clear that they would be considered sock puppets at all. The sock puppet accusation is closed and is more than 7 days old. The account is not blocked so the accusations can be removed. Confirmed sockpuppets are blocked per policy. --Tbeatty 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Patently untrue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn you people. Likely means yes. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I investigated Merecat and Rex071404's edit history in-depth and from my standpoint, it's confirmed that they are the same. Merecat has continually evaded and danced around the direct question, but not denied it. I find this to be anti-social behavior, and there's no merit in indulging the lawyering.

Note that I personally find Merecat's unwillingness to directly answer this question to be a far greater offense than anything in Merecat's article edit history. It shows not only a complete disregard for the community, but seems to show that Merecat has ulterior motives in editing Wikipedia.

I will be glad to share any information I have if the RfAr proceeds, and I'm sorry it has to be this way. KWH 02:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat's silence and the hysterical reaction to it, proves only that there is a bunch of overly sensitive editors here. And for your information, the question asked of Merecat was "are you Rex071404", to which the obvious answer was certainly "no" as Merecat was Merecat. Had any of you bother to ask Merecat, "did you ever edit as Rex071404, prior to moving to Texas", then you might have received an answer. Oh well, too late now. And if you think I am a sock, go look at the dialog with at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)#2.1 Question from an IP editor and tell me how many socks are running around here. Personally, I think that User:RyanFreisling is a sock of User:Kevin Baas, but that's just my opinion. Oh yeah, what's that Bender says "bite my shiny metal...". PS: Contrary to whatever you people think, I am not editing from a cellphone, I 'am a cellphone. You've all been too clever by half, so now I am going to propagate through the system and merge with you, taking you all over, Borg-like. Resistance is futile. Ps: User:Tbeatty is indeed a sock for Rex, but so is Nescio. HaHa! Fools! Regards, WillyOnMichael'sBigDaddyPelicanShitWheels. 04:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.38.136 (talk • contribs) -- Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Merecat blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Rex071404

This is turning into a circus.

I have just blocked Merecat indefinitely for sockpuppetry (checkuser) to evade the arbcom decision not to edit John Kerry, and for other disruptive behavior. I'm sure that he at least, and perhaps other folks, will not like this decision, but I stand behind it and welcome other administrators' review. Mackensen's checkuser, combined with the behavioral similarities documented at WP:RFAr (where a request has been made to reopen the Rex071404 case to reconsider this recent behavior), is convincing. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Since Rex has not edited since November and CU logs don't go back that far, I would have suggested waiting until somone else, such as Arbcom, could review Mackensen's findings (since the raw data and/or full rationale would never be provided to ordinary line editors). Thatcher131 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn.Thatcher131 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

CU logs are largely immaterial -- there've been four arbcom cases on Rex, most of which involved accusations of sockpuppetry; arbitrators are familiar with his IP information and it's probably also available in different places of Wikipedia's pseudo-legal system. The evidence is conclusive; there's really no need for a full arbcom case. Block leveled, arbcom can decide whether or not to extend the ban as needed, though I respect your opinion. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 19:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would request that the Merecat account be unblocked as this is the recent account. The other accounts have not been used for some time (6 months or more) and if Administrators feel a block is in order, it should be those accounts that are blocked. This appears to be more of a case of a new identity, not sock puppetry. --Tbeatty 19:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rex editing under a new account isn't necessarily the problem. Anybody can correct their behaviors, frankly, and start over with a new account and a clean slate -- it's not like we know who's behind every new account. The problem is that he used this new account to edit John Kerry, sometimes tendentiously, despite his arbcom ban (and then started behaving badly when people figured it out). That makes it sockpuppetry, and worse, sockpuppetry in direct contravention of an arbcom decision. This sort of behavior is bound to be censured, which is exactly what's happened. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan's right on this one. I support this block. FeloniousMonk 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I'll support as well. --Syrthiss 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly conquer with the actions of User:Katefan0 and support this block. And so does my family in case you're wondering. (We always browse Wikipedia as a family).TTHelp 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else similarily interested in this first edit from this user? Looks possibly like our ANI vandal. --Syrthiss 20:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Style reminds me a little of User:Buckshot. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I support as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support - Merecat will make an excellent indefinitely banned user. I thought he already WAS one! --Cyde Weys 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Total support It was the right decision. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support this action. Ral315 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse decision. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. The manner in which my words are quibbled over is amusing at times...Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking by Haham hanuka

This user attacks my edits throughout Wikipedia, making me personally the item of his discussions and edits. See for example here. Can someone do something about this situation? gidonb 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute as far as I can see. And for what it's worth, I think he's correct; 'killed' is far more NPOV than 'murdered'. --InShaneee 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether it is OK that he puts my name as the header of the discussion. He does this all the time. It is really embarrassing (there were many users who thaught murdered was the correct phrase, I am always singled out). gidonb 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point...I'll bring it up to him. --InShaneee 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:156.63.87.26 vandalised Mexican Cession 13:56, 12 May 2006

See this link Hdtopo 21:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley

[112] Is this a satisfactory way an administrator should respond like? Who has got the authority to judge whether or not there's such a need? — Instantnood 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

...I'd say it's perfectly good sense to not edit the archives, unless something had been archived prematurely. Even then, often simply starting the debate anew with a link to the old threat can be done. --InShaneee 21:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What I did was to add a link from the archive to where the discussion has continued. I was not responding on the archived page itself. I don't have much opinion on whether archived entries can be edited, and I'm in fact seeking for comment on whether user:William M. Connolley's response is a satisfactory one, as from an administrator. — Instantnood 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You could either

Take out a white glove and slap him across the face while loudly proclaiming your demand for satisfaction

or

Start a user RfC.

but asking a dozen different people to come pay attention to you on the 256k administrators bickerboard is not going to accomplish anything. SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that the above comment is very productive either. 222.166.160.95 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that WMC is beginning to lose patience with you Instantnood, and I'd agree with his statement (considering I too feel you've been trolling). --Syrthiss 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:KAS evaded a block

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AKAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sailor_Moon&curid=56088&diff=52891500&oldid=52884636

KAS, while logged out, posted a comment while she still had about two hours left on her block. Had she been a little more patient, I would have looked the other way.

--  Denelson83  21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Rob neptune from IP User:64.149.174.5

This user has taken his insistence that he be allowed to linkspam WP to new levels of attack, both against me in e-mail, and against WP here and here in violation of WP:POINT and WP:COPY.

(See the users' contribs for evidence they are one and the same.)

He was warned that I would consider linkspamming and vandalization to constitute his consent to reproduce our off-Wiki conversation here. Rather than do so immediately, I welcome any admin who wishes to investigate further to contact me and I will forward the e-mails (outgoing and incoming) as evidence. In the meantime, I have blocked 64.149.174.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 1 hour to stop the damage.

The incident began on-Wiki, here. My original e-mailed reply, self-written and posted with my full consent, is here.

RadioKirk talk to me 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui and Qadianism

User:Siddiqui, who apparently doesn't like the Ahmadi movement, created an article Qadianism in February as a POV fork of the article. An AfD was held in March, and the decision was to re-direct to Ahmadi. [113]. Three weeks later Siddiqui returned, undid the re-direct, and continued to edit the article. He now appears to be attempting to systematically remove any reference to Ahmadis from Wikipedia, and replace them with links to his own article, e.g. [114] [115] [116] As well, he's turned the article on the founder of the Ahmadi movement Mirza Ghulam Ahmad into a lengthy character assassination. I've seen issues with this editor before, in terms of refusing to understand or accept WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and these seem to be further examples of this troubling behavior. For now I've reverted the attempts, and protected that Qadianism page as a re-direct, as per the original AfD. Do others have any advice or other ideas? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Qadianism was needed to counter the Ahmadi arguments. They were systematically removed and redirected. I was never consulted or informed of AfD. Thus the AfD and vote is controversal.

Siddiqui 21:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you don't agree with an AfD doesn't mean it is "controversial"; the AfD was open for over a week. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I don't agree with AfD. But I was never informed of AfD and thus was not able to take part in it. Siddiqui 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Posts like this are going to get Wikipedia's phone tapped by the NSA...Oh, everyone is already phonetapped. Sorry.TTHelp 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We are already tapped by NSA if we use flagged words in conversation. Siddiqui 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I note also that the Ahmadi article makes it clear that "Qadiani" is a deliberately offensive term used by the opponents of the Ahmadi Muslim movement.[117] Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, Muslims do not have family names in South Asia. In previous century the person was named after his city of residence. Thus we have people from Delhi added Dehlvi, from Lahore as Lahori etc. So Mirza Ghulam was called Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani since he was from Qadian.

Siddiqui 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he's only called that by people who are being deliberately offensive. His followers don't call him that. Britannica doesn't call him that, nor do they call his movement "Qadianism"[118]. Why call him be a deliberately offensive name that his followers don't use? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He is called Mirza Qadiani and his religion as Qadianism in Pakistan. You cannnot have one side of the story. There must be balance and counter arguments. The Qadianism page has the full constitutional amendments for the status this religion. That amendment is part of Pakistani consitution and you cannot just remove it.

Siddiqui 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you think it's acceptable to call Muslims "Mohemmadans" and Islam "Mohammedanism"?[119] Google gets hundreds of thousands of hits for the terms. Would you consider it acceptable for me to create a new articles with those names to present "the other side", and then change all the links in Wikipedia to those articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is very POV and not consistent with our content policies, Siddiqui: for example, the section about the brain diseases he was suffering from, and writing like: "This self proclaimed intoxicated lover of Holy Prophet became so much consumed with his love that he started having revelations (delusions of grandeur!) informing him that all those verses revealed in the glory of Holy Prophet Muhammad are now being revealed in Mirza Qadiani's honor." The article needs to reflect the views of third-party published sources, preferably scholarly sources, who have written about him. The Wikipedia editor's own opinion should not shine through, ideally. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's make an informed decision. We should keep Qadianism article. I will not add any controversal matter in the other Ahmadi related pages.

Siddiqui 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's make a policy-based and common-sense decision. We'll keep the re-direct, as per AfD, and make especially sure that any information we add to any of these articles follows all of Wikipedia's content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. I was not informed of AfD. It is controversal. Do I have to create a new page ? Add that info in Religions in Pakistan page ? Siddiqui 22:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't really negotiate over WP:CON (although this is only a guideline, not policy), WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR; if they are unacceptable to you, then Wikipedia as a whole is likely unacceptable to or inappropriate for you (you are, I know, a valuable contributor, and so I don't mean to suggest that you leave; rather, I mean to suggest that you ought to bring your editing into line with the relevant policies, in order that you might continue to add to the encyclopedia). Even as it may have been decorous for the nominator to inform you as to the AfD, it certainly wasn't compulsory; in any case, I can't imagine that anything you might have adduced would have changed the minds of the many participants who offered cogent and logical reasons for merge. If, of course, you've new, verifiable, NPOV information, you are welcome to edit the page such that it's no longer a redirect and to recreate the article, with the proviso that if your article does not comport with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, reversion to the redirect will be immediate. Joe 22:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the Qadianism page [120]. It is balanced, it has Pakistan's consitutional amendment, links to pro-Ahmadi pages, links to anti-Ahmadi pages. What is controversal ? This is just misguided censorship. The Qadianism page does not have any controversal POV. Do I have to create a new page ?

Siddiqui 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are any complaints about the current contents of Qadianism please present them. This redirect is censorship. There are hundreds of pages in Wikipedia that could fall into this broad category of redirection. This page contain the info that is not included by other pages. Siddiqui 04:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Review of Easter blocks

At the beginning of last month, an anonymous user posted links to a website which attacks some of the editors on the Christianity article. The website, which I looked at at the time, was certainly an attack site, and was based on the deleted user page of User:John1838, but it did not have real names or photos. On 13 April, John reappeared as User:SimplePilgrim, and posted several more links. At this stage, the website had KHM03's photo, his real name, and a link to his website which gave information about his location, his wife, his family, etc. SimplePilgrim was reverted by SOPHIA, and a new user (with obvious connection to a user who has violated WP:SOCK more than once in the past) began to follow her around and repost the link. He was blocked indefinitely by an admin, and another admin almost simultaneously blocked for a month. SimplePilgrim was also blocked for a month.

KHM03 left Wikipedia as a result. Creepy messages were sent to his talk page, mentioning his wife, children, and dog by name. In addition, a very inappropriate e-mail was sent to his superior.

The background is long and complicated, and I don't want to clog up this noticeboard. So I have written an account here of the events that led to these Easter blocks. The blocks are due to expire very soon, and I would like some other admins to review them with a view to making them indefinite. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I support AnnH's request that the blocks be made indefinite. Material recently has been added to the off-Wiki page. I'd do the blocks myself, but since I am one of the admins named on the page I'd like someone uninvolved to take a look, and block if appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just indef-block both accounts myself. I would like to know what the admins who blocked for a month think about this? Jkelly 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree that block should be indef. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:29 UTC (2006-05-13)

I tidied up some of the reposts after the inital AN/I report, initally looked into some of the unblock requests. I'd support any extensions to the blocks. --pgk^(talk) 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

SimplePilgrim has now been indef blocked by Freakofnurture, I've just re-applied the indef block to HK30. I generally make a strong policy of assuming good faith, if at all possible, but in this case I believe there is absolutely no need for these sort of editors on Wikipedia. Petros471 11:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I support indef-blocks as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/XLR8TION

Can someone have a look at this user. There was a discussion a couple of weeks ago on Talk:Elvera Sanchez regarding a book on Sammy Davis, Jr. that claimed that his mother was not Puerto Rican but a New Yorker of Cuban descent, which was supported by her own relatives and contemporary documentation. Most editors agreed on the wording in both articles except the above who, despite hearing that Davis' mother had said she was not Puerto Rican which was accepted by Tony the Marine, the user still didn't believe it saying maybe she was senile... The user has now started continually making subtle POV changes with somewhat confrontational edit summaries to Elvera Sanchez and Sammy Davis, Jr. to try and weaken the book's credibility by adding "alleges" or "speculates" instead of "suggests" or "claims", ("alleges" is usually used in a negative context and "speculates" usually indicates that the claim is not backed up by solid evidence which is just not the case). Arniep 02:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

blatent hostility toawrds new user

people seem intent on venting their blatent hostility on me, for some reason I can't figure at all, please won't someone help me!--~~~~ 02:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Now where've I seen this signature before... some banned user, surely. Kimchi.sg 02:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

not sure what you're getting at, I'm a brand new user--~~~~ 02:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you're a 'new' user who's been banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet or imitator of the permanently banned User:-Ril-. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be so mean to new users--~~~~ 02:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That signature would be from User:-Ril- (not to be confused with User:Lir), the victim of signature fascism. Kotepho 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure about the sig, but the userpage looks quite familiar, trying to remember who it was. Contributions seem familiar too: [121], [122], [123], etc. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I should really read the text when I get an edit conflict. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What are all of you going on about?--~~~~ 02:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ril was the victim of sig fascism, banned as a return of CheeseDreams. Lir was around before my time. Guettarda 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember Lir. In fact, when Lar started to appear, I was wary. Heck, for a while any combination of three letters involving an L and an R was setting off the "Lir" alarm. Geogre 13:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is possibly the AN/I prankster again, considering that they posted to AN/I before actually being "harassed" by anyone. Ashibaka tock 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

203.122.215.44 (talk · contribs)

Who is this a sockpuppet of?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)

That's not how things work on Wikipedia... if you want to do a sockpuppet check, you need to have both an extremely good reason to do so AND you need to put the request on the request for checkuser page, not here. Daniel Davis 07:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And you'd need to be referring to an account. IP's aren't "sockpuppets" of anything/anyone. Geogre 12:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Thewolfstar sockpuppet blocked, please review

I have blocked Lamb_of_god (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sock or possibly meatpuppet of community-banned user Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see this recently archived ANI thread for consensus that Thewolfstar had exhausted the community's patience. The reason I'm posting my sockban here for review is that CheckUser shows the two accounts not editing from the same ISP, so there's no technical evidence. (Of course technical evidence isn't needed iff the case is convincing without it.) After looking at the edits, I'm assuming they were input from a different location, by TWS herself or a friend. I'm asking people, and especially those already somewhat familiar with Thewolfstar's style and favored topics, to please take a look at the contribs of Lamb of god. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Crikey, I don't know why the Lamb of god template expands to "of god page moves" and "of god block log"--a little spooky, but I hope it doesn't matter. Bishonen | talk 09:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

This happens when there are spaces in the usernames - you can get rid of it by adding underscores, as I have now done. Haukur 09:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was afraid it meant God was on her side. Bishonen | talk 09:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

God is on all of our sides, not just the above mentioned user.A Voice In The Night 09:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I should rather think it a little bit the sin of pride to name one's account agnus dei. Geogre 12:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(After a punch in the nose): the account exists solely to unblock TheWolfStar. It is thus a role account, and I support a block. However, I don't think that it is TheWolfStar herself. I have dark suspicions, as always, but I think that this user, so far, is on a mission, and that mission is to question/overturn a fairly well deliberated and in-process block. Geogre 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Poor, poor TWS and her ways and won'ts. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This character is either Thewolfstar or someone who has spent so very much time listening to her that they are using the same insulting nicknames for various users, with the same spellings, as used in a few emails I got from Thewolfstar herself. Occam's razor says it's her; looking at her editing style and especially her edit summaries, I can't think why Geogre might think not. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What are ways and won'ts? Bishonen | talk 18:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

Well, my thinking it isn't isn't very important, really. It's certainly a role account. When a user's first edits are to talk pages of others, then to its own, we're not looking at a newbie. It's a reincarnation of someone or an existing user creating a second account to perform a role. I thought TWS's spelling was much better, and I think TWS may be part of a web-oriented religious or political group, but such secondary speculation really is irrelevant. The account should have been and is properly blocked. Geogre 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ways are what people will do in order to ensure advantages for themselves, while won'ts are the opposite, although commonly people do not conduct this in a manner that will lead to disadvantageous situations; it frequently occurs without realization. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Navigatrix sockpuppet of User:Lou franklin

I suspect that User:Navigatrix is a sockpuppet of the currently blocked User:Lou franklin, based on his contributions. Other opinions? What is typically done in these situations? ~MDD4696 13:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Could be, could not be. I could not say (and I have interacted a LOT with him). I think just keep an eye on it, and see what the next edits are. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

After some more thought, no, I do not think it is him as the pages he requests unblock for etc are just not ones he has been editing at all. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

He's certainly a sock, but I don't see any reason to think it's Lou. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem with editor whose English is hard to understand

You are referring to my edit to [[matsuri]. What I did was remove an inappropriate html table of links that you added to an already link-heavy article. There were 14 external links in the article, and nine of them were in your table. You have been told many times that Wikipedia is not a link farm. Please notice that after you reverted my edit, an administrator immediately wiped out all of your links as well as several of the others. Your edits to matsuri are inappropriate to Wikipedia. One doesn't have to know anything about matsuri to see that or to correct it. Fnarf999 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(from this user's talk page)

I really tried but i believe this is not suitable politically. How he includes "wipe out" sounds racist. I am not going to put more effort into this. I believe it is not much writing, but a serious mistake. He generally is very inpolite. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, this page is long enough. Please give some indication of who you're talking about, why you have posted a snippet from their talkpage, what you would like us to do, and who abandoned who, or I remove your post. Enough with the Theatre of the Absurd. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

For some background on this user and his current conflict see here. — GT 17:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Over the last few days several editors have pointed out to Akidd dublin that many of his edits are impossible to understand due to english not being his native language. Generally that wouldn't be a problem, slightly unusally phrasing or minor grammar/spelling errors are easily fixed, but Akidd dublin's edit's, while well meaning, are often at the level of being completely impossible to understand. His contributions to Static random access memory, for example, were reversed by two different editors as "unintelligible" and "poorly worded and hard to understand". Many people have pointed the problems that his difficulty with english is causing (See his talk page for some of the many comments) User:Fnarf999 was just one of many, but Akidd dublin responded by changing words in his comments[124], for which he was warned by User:Yamla. Since then there has been mediation, and prior to this comment on the incident board, Akidd dublin also posted on the villiage pump[125] in a similar manner. Akidd dublin has also selectively archived comments on his talk page, and from reading his replies, I don't think he realises how much difficultly his edits are causing. He also has a tendency to add content which is unrelated, except by very tenious links (e.g. adding a link to a film site (rottentomatos) into Red Hair, because tomato is a nickname for red hair, or to Yahoo groups, because they have red haired avatars there. Nothing which is vandalism, but quite fustrating for those trying to fix these issues as communication with him is proving very difficult, as his talk page shows! It's also not helpful that he won't tell us what his native language is, which could be of use to try and understand what he is saying, because quite frankly, I don't understand what he means most of the time, and it's this quality of english that he insists on adding to wikipedia. (he's also created a new account, User:Yy-bo, which has only made a few edits recently. Regards, MartinRe 17:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Martin. The only bit I understood was the far-fetched accusation of racism, which I can't say prediposed me in favor of the usefulness of this editor. I'll leave the thread on the page till the bot gets it, then, with a less mysterious and screamy heading, as people may have input on the more general problem. Bishonen | talk 18:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

I am at the point now where I think this user is a troll. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The thought had crossed my mind also, Zoe, but my gut feeling is that he is not. I may be proven wrong, but until then, I'll assume good faith. That leaves me with a dilema, I would like to keep an eye on his contributions so if he adds something that doesn't make sense I can ask him to clarify and/or fix the grammar myself. However, I want to do that as a good faith measure to try and ensure articles remain understandable, and also help him edit better, and not in a wikistalking way, so I want to get a general opinion on whether actions like these would be accepatable before I go any further. For example, he has just edited Superstition and I have made some grammar fixes, and requested on the talk page to explain what he meant by "Urban legends, which are not scientifically prooved (justification) are put into correlation(s) which do no exist in physical, visible reality.", which I believe is a reasonable enough request. I think I get the vague idea behind the sentence, urban legends and superstition are somewhat related, but I haven't enough to work on to try and fix the grammar. Unfortunately many of his edits are like this, close enough to the subject to believe he's in good faith, but written in such a way that it's difficult, if not impossible to work with.

Does my idea seem okay, or are there any other suggestions on the best way to progress on this matter? MartinRe 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would worry that watching his contributions on any article he edited could be seen as provocative, no matter how justified it might be in this case. I think I would tend to wait a day or so and see if anyone else has the article on their watch list and fixes it without your intervention. Wikipedia can bear with 24 hours of bad english in a few articles. Thatcher131 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the user has abandoned his account and will take up editing under a new user name (as it is entirely permissible); I'm sure someone will alert AN/I should his new account make edits of similar quality and talk page discussions of similar disruption. It's rather difficult to determine if the user is trolling, I think; so many of his talk page contributions are necessarily ironic and altogether funny, and they often seem to be from a native English speaker affecting (jocularly) the writing style of a non-native speaker (as in I do not spell grammatically incorrect sentences within articles. If anyway think I do, then make it three-line (if possible) [I assume the latter portion to mean that he does not want verbose comments to his talk page, which surely would be consistent with his not being familiar with English]; I do not harass terms, just funny things; and, My new articles are not full of mistakes, neither they spell completely wrong grammar. I have abandoned this account. I found it ridicioulus: there was annoying information (article:red hair). It was removed. I was accused then of spelling wrong sentences. It does not have to be in usage by anyone (i.e. "Please understand it forehand"). It sounds better than: "You have been warned". It is not impossible to understand this writing). One hopes, though, that if the user was trolling, he'll use his new account for good; if he wasn't, one hopes that he'll seek to improve his English (at least for the purposes of editing here) or partake of a Wikipedia with the language of which he's more conversant. Joe 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV carried to the extreme

I have been directed to this page. I have mentioned irregularities in the past to administrators, but they are not responding to me, probably as they presume it may affect their career path in Wikipedia. My concern is that people act in teams, if they disagree with someones viewpoint. The team's strategy is to annoy the person to such a point, he or she overreacts, and breaks a Wikpedia rule, any rule, knowingly or unknowling. An anology is a person stepping on a carefully placed mine. As soon as the "wikicrime" occurs, the leader of the team in question, an administrator, quickly acts, and promptly and permanently bans the person. I do not like this technique. It may be in the spirit of Wikipedia's Command Number 1, "thou shalt be NPOV", but it is uncivil. Wallie 14:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tagteaming? Oh dear, that does sound like the natural result of the three revert rule. Kim Bruning 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you perhaps explain what incident this is in reference to? Or what you expect administrators to do? Certainly, there's nothing we can do to regulate user conduct in this way, and there's most certainly nothing anyone can do. If you're referring to a general pattern of behaviour, then I don't know what to tell you. In short, what's your point?--Sean Black ^(talk) 14:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which specific incident Wallie is referring to, but if you'd like to see a recent example, you can view the Juan Cole page. On the Talk page for that article, an admin admits to having recruited 4 like-minded admins who were not previously editng the article, they then all appeared on the scene, proceeded to make wholesale one-sided edits and then protected the page Isarig 16:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about this "career path in Wikipedia" that you speak of. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean the rest of you didn't get a raise in your salaries in January, with a bonus for every reference in Fox News, a double for USA Today, and a 1.5% adjustment for each Colbert Report mention? Oh. Geogre 15:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All I have is the Wiki Tag Team Reversion Steel Cage Championship belt. But oh, is it shiny. --InShaneee 15:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, when you join the Cabal Associate Circle Auxillary (CACA), you get points for every new user that you manage to drive away. These purchase "rouge" power ups that accumulate to get a new jetpack to fly to the land of Tampa, where you get a salary increase. (For the record, TINC.) Geogre 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. To clarify, this was a general inquiry. I do not like to mention specific cases, as people get off the topic, if personalities are involved. I just wanted to get some ideas on how to handle this type of situation. I was not referring to teams of admins either. The team would typically consist of a number of like minded people, with one being the admin with banning capability. As for a career path, surely there must be one, or why would anyone want to be an admin? Wallie 21:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Masochism? Admins are volunteers just like everyone else. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 22:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Free Porn

I just deleted that which was a redirect to User:Mr. Lefty/You're a Dirty Little Kid. I see no need to redirect into someones user space just to be told off. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted Free porn, but I see no issue (with the deletion). ~MDD4696 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just came here for the obligatory "Free porn? Where?" response. Ral315 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Free Porn"? I didn't know it had been imprisoned --Alf ^melmac 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this stuff as a prank or troll. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wha...?! That's unjustified. We can't have pranks on our userpages? ~MDD4696 16:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia, see what wikipedia is not, wikipedia is not a free web host. --pgk^(talk) 16:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I might have been a more lenient if it had been funny and not just stupid.--Sean Black ^(talk) 16:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And it's been recreated. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Humor is very subjective. I thought the idea was amusing, even though he shouldn't have redirected to the userspace from main. I don't see the relevance of the free web host point: a joke here or there isn't the same as a daily diary.

I think a joke here or there lightens the mood and puts a positive spin on the Wikipedian community. Left and right I see vandals and POV warriors and all sorts of negative attitudes. They're part of the community too, but why should we let them dominate? The Wikipedian community is an essential element in the process of building an encyclopedia. Without it, I think many editors would get bored or burnt out. You wouldn't shut down Esperanza or the Department of Fun just because they're not directly building the encyclopedia, would you? Without some sort of release, we'd all be walking on eggshells.

Granted, if a user is overdoing the jokes or user subpages and the like, it's inappropriate. But I hardly think 2 subpages are anything to worry about. ~MDD4696 17:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that should have been the dirty little kid is back not the free porn. He also has User:Mr. Lefty/My Talk. Likes the jokes I guess. Seems harmless but it should not redirect from the mainspace. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted User:Mr. Lefty/My Talk, since it was a bogus block notice with a forged Jimbo Wales signature on it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity impersonator

User:Emmaroberts claims to be Emma Roberts, which seems dubious. Not sure what is done in such cases, but it was suggested I bring it up here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The account should be blocked, as far as I am aware, though I am not 100% accurate. Does anybody else know the correct procedure to conduct? —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems pretty premature. The user doesn't appear to be doing anything nasty as of yet. --InShaneee 18:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a block may may have come too quick. Nothing worse than doing things prematurely. Give it a little time to firm up the suspicions, then slam it hard and fast with a block. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for using the name of a living person. If they can verify that they are indeed who they claim to be, then they will be unblocked immediately.--Sean Black ^(talk) 18:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for future reference, is that the usual policy? --InShaneee 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware. There was a previous incident involving a User:Hilary Duff where the same course of action was taken (it's not in the block log, as I believe this was before the current log was implemented.).--Sean Black ^(talk) 18:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite - we actually gave her an opportunity to verify her identity then blocked her, rather than the other way around. Phil Sandifer 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmhm, okay.--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to drop a note on their talk page outlining the reason for the block, or do they automatically see the block reason?. Personally I would have thought it better to ask first, explain WP:USERNAME, and request verification. Then if verification wasn't forthcoming, or user started vandalism, sure block, but there is no policy I'm aware of against using a name of a notable person - if you are that person. Do we not assume good faith? What happens if this does turn out to be the real person? Regards, MartinRe 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur, and it's not too late to do that in this case. AingGF is better late than never.... JDoorjam Talk 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

When an account claims to be a living person, not to mention a minor, there are potentially serious issues involved. Frankly, this is a "better safe than sorry" case. If they are who they claim to be, then verification should not be difficult, and the account will be unblocked immediately.--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... it appears this is probably just some kind of sock. See User_talk:Zanimum#Waldo. Zanimum brought up Emma Roberts as a joke, then magically, the REAL Emma Roberts created an account, saw two random people using her name, showed up and complained? Very unlikely. I support the block. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that information, I support the block, but think it would be better to always ask first, and block only if evidence like the above occurrs, or vandalism starts. (I did add a fuller note to the page, seems a little moot now) Regards, MartinRe 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As do I. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I acted somewhat hastily, but I suppose if it should be blocked anyway, it's moot. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an overreaction here. Emma Roberts is not a highly specific name, and it could be someone else with the same name (there are at least 3 other people in the world with my given and falily name combination, and my family name is far less common than Roberts). I think this is a first ask, then block situation if this account is used improperly. Just my 0.02 EurocentsKim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That would have been fine, but she was claiming to be the Emma Roberts. One with Julia Roberts as an aunt. It wasn't just a coincidence. But yes, that is just this case. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, there's something I've always been curious about- how would a celebrity Wikipedian go about proving that they actually are who they say they are? Obviously (with the user's permission) we could check the IP to see if it matches to the location the celebrity is known to live near, but other than that I'm at a loss of ideas of how anyone could prove such a thing online. Are there any obvious things they could do to prove their identity? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. It could be confirmed with a post on their official website, or they could just post a picture of them with a sign saying, "Hello, I am famous. On Wikipedia, I go by the name _____". Simple as that. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Which reminds me, someone want to block the above poster until he can pony up some proof that he's really he-who-must-not-be-named? :P --InShaneee 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... erm... I mean... we should just take peoples' words for it. Yeeeah, that's the ticket. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this comment in itself is enough to block LV for wrongful impersonation. If he were really He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, we would currently be attending InShaneee's funeral, not reading stuttering about assuming good faith. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If that the case, this gives us some insight of what happens in the 7th Harry Potter book... :-) --Tone 21:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit? :-D FreplySpang (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're the Dark Lord, Lord Voldemort? Last I checked, there was someone very pale and stealing Christmas claiming to be the true evil person. Oh, wait... never mind. It seems like some kind of lion has taken care of that. Beware all felines, then, Lord Voldemort! :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you caught me... wanna know who I really am? ;-) --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

They could email us from an official email account to verify that they are indeed that person. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I discussed how I'd go about proving I am who I say I am, or at least suggesting strongly that I was (the trust problem shifts to my employer, and the volume/body of my web work/identity) here. Not that I'm famous or anything, I have less than 16,000 Google hits... While I like the holding up a sign bit, there are celebrity doubles out there... How do people know Wil Wheaton is the person posting to his blog? ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• • In fact, the singer Momus declared that, on MySpace, there was an imposter who had done a whole user profile and posted a song that Momus himself had deleted, and now, he says, there are all these people who "know" him that he's never met. The faux Momus was apparently a devoted fan. That said, there are several persons named John Wayne, Valerie Plame and the like. The account name per se shouldn't be an impersonation. Impersonation is more than a name: it's a behavior. Since, as I hope we settled before, Wikipedia takes no account, gives no credence, to real life identities (doesn't have "expert editors" and the like), a person claiming to be Karl Rove would be just another editor, I hope. Geogre 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Dweec

As I understand it, some sort of blacklist change was implemented as a result of the personal information displayed against several editors on a website which this user seems to be advertising on his user page and user talk page. It also appears to be a new account, so it may of been created solely to advertise this website. I thought i'd just bring it up here. Oh, and most of his contributions seem to consist of spreading this link to several talk pages, including Talk:Atheism and some user talk pages.Homestarmy 18:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back the linkspam and warned the user, though it wouldn't surprise me if this was a sock. --InShaneee 18:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin issuing threats and abusing powers

User:InShaneee is abusing his admin position by issuing threats and blocks to people who "disrespect" him. He has a history of posting incivility blocks, frequently using highly uncivil language, on users. His behaviour usually follows the same format. Post a frequently highly provocative warning on a user's page. The user takes offence and replies. InShaneee then blocks them for their response to InShaneee's action. Tasc was blocked for 48 hours for how they responded. Ghostalker had a one day block extended to one week because of a sarcastic reply they gave. Another editor was threatened with a block for daring to use the word propaganda about clear propaganda being added to a page! Now they posted This is your last warning. Disrespecting me isn't going to get you anywhere, either on my page. The issue is calling bizarre edits by a user "bizarre". (InShaneee has a big issue with words. Actions don't usually provoke a response from them. But he goes all Dirty Harry over a word or two!) Put simply, a single user who have been pushing an extreme pro-monarchist bias on Reza Cyrus Pahlavi through deleting NPOV edits, deleting fully cited sections from the page that are in anyway critical of Pahlavi and replacing it with his hagiography, posting a {fact} template on a paragraph that has citations. For using a word InShaneee disapproves of, and not obeying InShaneee's orders when told to I am apparently on a final warning!!! lol Maybe we should have a list of InShanee unapproved words so users can know that "prograganda" gets a 24 hour block, "bizarre" a 48 block, while disrepecting them earns an automatically 1 week block plus a grovelling apology written in red. lol Looking on their contributions page, it seems that InShaneee spends much of their time posting "incivility" threats (without even using templates) on user pages, taking offence at the responses and then blocking people for those responses. (BTW his behaviour on this has apparently been raised here by other admins before!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Tasc was being a little uncivil, but not making personal attacks, so blocking may have been too harsh. However, the two others seem fine to me, "hoping someone will die or catch cancer" is definitely worth at least a stern warning, and asking someone to stop describing another editors contribution as propaganda is a reasonable thing to do. Regards, MartinRe 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If there has been one case that InShaneee has got right without a doubt, is this. Jtdirl has been "extremley" rude and has posted accusations such as those above again and again which is why I have reported him to InShaneee. He has offended me on number of occasions. Infact he has assumed bad faith from the very beginning by going around spamming users with this message: "Iranian monarchists seem to want to ensure the article is an OTT hagiography and don't like even mild criticism being added in." [126], [127], [128], [129].

This uncivil approach of calling names didn't stop there. I posted in the talk page of the article in mind for every problem I had with, at Talk:Reza_Cyrus_Pahlavi#Title, Talk:Reza_Cyrus_Pahlavi#"No evidence has been produced" and Talk:Reza_Cyrus_Pahlavi#Wordings - He decided not to respond to any of them, instead, he decided to make this a personal matter by posting:

"It would be nice if Kash was constructive for once in this page rather than just deleting thinks that don't reflect his opinion" [130], "Kash's behaviour is getting odder....Kash's antics here are increasingly bizarre." [131]

This is while I had never made a single comment about him, nor posted any accusations about him.

That is why I reported him to InShaneee and he had every right to tell him to be civil, but instead Jtdirl went ahead with even more incivil comments [132] both toward me and InShaneee. He without a doubt does not understand how to approach solving disputes without disrespecting other members and InShaneee had every right to remind him to be Civil and Assume good faith. He has again posted more accusations such as "one single user with extreme pro-monarchist POV" just on this report he has done above! I invite everyone to read the talk page of Talk:Reza Cyrus Pahlavi and judge for themselves about the accusations. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)]

• Blanket deletions of sourced criticism, and reversion to unsourced hagiography.
• Constant accusations that those trying to turn an embarrassingly hagiographic "gee isn't this guy a hero" article into a neutral sourced article are biased and anti-Pahlavi.
• Demanding that sources be removed before they were not the right sources (ie, they were critical, not glorifying).
• Demanding citations of already citated text.
• Demanding the article treat a pretender to a throne as if he was actually king; calling him "His Imperial Majesty" and throwing a tantrum when users (plural) moved him to a neutral name.
• Constant attacks alleging bias against every NPOV editor who came to the page, because they wouldn't stop tampering with the "this man is my hero" text and actually putting in citations.

All of these were Kash's work. When it comes to demanding that citations be cited (!!!) that really is too bizarre for words. (Oops. Better not say the 'b' word. InShaneee doesn't like the 'b' word being used. Will "odd", "ridiculous", "nonsensical" and "off the wall" do? lol) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone sees what I'm trying to deal with here; a tough, tense content dispute that's quickly degenerating into mudslinging. --InShaneee 20:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed what it looks like to me, a heated content dispute. (Jtdirl, I'm sure you're aware that ther definition of what a reliable source is much stricter when talking about living people as per WP:BLP#Credible_sources, so it might be better to leave that issue on the talk page for the moment) Regards, MartinRe 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to see Jtdirl not providing links for his accusations so I could infact comment on them. In any case a content dispute should not lead to personal attacks of this user, especially since he is an admin, apparently. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is all of this here? Is there something at WP:DR that says, "come to WP:ANI to complain?" User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but the top of this page says "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both", which appears to be what he's doing. Stifle (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 20:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a vandal, though I don't think I agree with his moves. According to the naming standards, pages don't need a qualifier (Episode instead of Episode (show name)) unless needed to disambig, right? --InShaneee 20:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct, not all of the episodes need the qualifier, specifically if the name is unique enough that no other page would want to occupy that space. However, a few of these moves were definitely needed, such as Eye of the Storm and Luck of the Draw. I think these should either redirect somewhere else, have an article created there, or be deleted once all of the redirects are fixed, as people typing these phrases into the search box aren't likely to be looking for Sliders episodes. (IMO) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, those ones should definatly have qualifiers, with their old pages redirecting somewhere more topical. The user's been unblocked (since he clearly has no ill intentions here), but someone should probably explain this all to him before he gets to far with further page moves (and so he can perhaps start moving them back himself). --InShaneee 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. While browsing categories, I saw that in some shows, there are articles that are named either Episode name or Episode name (episode) or Episode name (Show episode). Since this is very unconvenient, I decided to take action and name it all in the uniform manner. I find it really unpractical for some episodes to have qualifiers and some not, and as some certainly need them, as pointed out, it is better to name them all uniformly. Besides, there are two major types of naming, see Inferno (Stargate Atlantis) and Endgame (Voyager episode). I was thinking to addres this to the according wikiproject. If different naming conventions are used, it results in a mess. --Tone 21:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

An excellent point, but do keep in mind that for the moment the naming policy is as above about qualifiers. --InShaneee 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Naming convention. I didn't expect you to change the naming policy, of course, I just wanted to show my point. I think the discussion at the project's page should generate a consensus. --Tone 21:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

request semi-protection at Romano Prodi

There is a persistent revert war at Romano Prodi over allegations that Prodi was a KGB agent. Almost all the reverts are by IP addresses. I have asked them on the talk page to log in and find a compromise, but nothing changes. Please semi-protect the page, so that users who want to add or remove the KGB stuff will have some sort of way to talk to them, and to tell how many distinct individuals are involved. --Trovatore 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Curt Weldon/Joe Sestak editing

The contributors User:Americapd, User:209.71.15.194, User:Jameswchen, User:Ndt 123, and User:Topdog08 have made numerous edits in the last week and a half to remove critical content about U.S. Rep Curt Weldon and inserted content critical of Joe Sestak. Sestak is Weldon's Democratic opponent this year. I don't have any particular requests for action but I would like advice on what to do before we start getting into revert wars, and I don't want to be fighting tag-team edits by a coordinated group. I don't have any real issue about them inserting opposition research into the Sestak article as long as they don't try to whitewash Weldon. If any of my edits or practices have crossed a line, please tell me (preferably at my talk page), because I don't want to unintentionally create problems. --User At Work 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas who "S. R. Wojdak and Assoc." is? That's where that IP ARIN-traces back to. JDoorjam Talk, troublemaker. 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A political consulting/media relations/lobbying firm. Hmm. It should be said, though, that, as most large firms, this one to represent candidates of either major political party; several executives donate to Republican causes, whilst the titular partner appears categorically to support Democrats. I don't find any relevant Google reference to Weldon's having retained the firm to do any work on the 2006 campaign, so one might safely assume that the efforts described supra are undertaken by one (or more) individual(s) not necessary in furtherance of his/her/their firm's wishes. Joe 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be our good friend willy or a fan. Homestarmy 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean userboxes weren't invented by Willy on Wheels? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

MutterErde

I have blocked 195.93.60.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a month for ban evasion. The IP is static, and he admits in this edit that he is MutterErde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indefinitely banned by Jimbo Wales. Chick Bowen 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with SlimVirgin Over Removal of Talk Page Comments, Removal of Unreplied-To Comments, Etc.

SlimVirgin removed User:203.122.215.44's comments on the Wikitruth talk page. [133] Please note that the text of the edit description is a standard rollback message. I reverted same when I noticed [134], per WP:TPG ("Avoid deleting comments on talk pages, particularly comments made by others") and WP:VAN ("Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism"). I posted a note to SlimVirgin's talk page asking her not to do same, reminding her of the policy violations in a rather mild way [135].

SlimVirgin's response stated the removal was because the comments were made by a banned user, and that I should have assumed good faith. [136] I responded, "Your response seems to be based upon the following: first, that I am able to swiftly connect a post signed as 203.122.215.44 with a user named Zordrac; second, that assuming I knew 203.122.215.44 was Zordrac, that I would know he was banned by the Arbitration Committee; third, that it is appropriate to remove anonymous comments; and fourth, that somehow not making these assumptions is a violation of WP:AGF. WP:AGF also quite clearly states, 'ssuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, it only means that one should not ascribe said action to malice.' I don't believe I ascribed malice to you at any point, just criticism." [137]

SlimVirgin replied, "I'm not going to argue with you about it. When you see an admin removing material, assume there is a reason, and don't assume the admin is a vandal. Just because you're not familiar with the reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist." [138] She directed me to make further replies on her talk page, or else she wouldn't see it. (See Wikipedia's recommended reply policy, which this counters.)

Following her request to make further replies on her talk page, I went there. I stated that her lack of description in the edit description did not assist editors in WP:AGF, and that absent that, it was difficult to assume good faith when witnessing an act that is quite literally a textbook example of vandalism. I also asked her if she could provide a cite as to policy that allowed removal of anonymous edits that were suspected to have come from a banned user, as I could find no such policy. I also noted I had trouble with the way she phrased her response. [139]

She blanked that section of the talk page with the edit description "unbelievable". [140] I posted a note to her page citing Wikipedia policy regarding blanking unreplied-to items on a personal talk page [141]. She blanked this response, too [142].

I solicit administrators' opinions on the following issues:

First, does policy exist that allows administrators to remove talk page comments made by people suspected to be banned users? If so, can you please provide the policy cites, which SlimVirgin was unwilling to do?

Second, was I to somehow swiftly connect a post signed as 203.122.215.44 with a user named Zordrac; know that 203.122.215.44 was Zordrac (or was suspected of same); know Zordrac was banned by the Arbitration Committee; and know that removal of his comments was permissible, all on my own? And was my failure to do so assuming bad faith?

Third, is SlimVirgin's statement that I did not assume good faith correct? "Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions," says WP:AGF, and as the earlier-quoted example outlines, criticism does not constitute assuming bad faith; I did not ascribe malice.

Fourth, has SlimVirgin conducted herself incivilly in her responses to my actions and in her repeated blanking of her talk page? I believe she could have been much less prickly in her handling of this matter.

Fifth, is this the appropriate forum for this query? I do not think this matter is serious enough to go higher in the dispute resolution chain, but if the Mediators' Cabal or Mediation Committee is a more appropriate venue, I can inquire there. I doubt that the Arbitration Committee is appropriate, but I am not well-versed in the dispute resolution areas of Wikipedia, so would appreciate others' feelings on this issue.

I appreciate your responses in advance. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should go straight to the arbitration committee with this one, WCM. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike, I implore you to exercise common sense rather than following a rigid application of policy and guideline pages. If you wanted to know why SlimVirgin rolled back an edit like that, you should have asked her instead of accusing her in the first place; once it was explained, you should have gone ahead and assumed SV was pretty good at identifying the banned user by his editing style; once your campaign got to the point where SV was removing you from her talk page, you should have gone "no harm has been done and I am now annoying somebody" instead of posting this here. One grape's opinion. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

...."assumed SV was pretty good at identifying the banned user by his editing style"....that scares me! For the record, I am a new in here and have delt with SlimVirgin, and she was approachable and civil with me.--Backroomlaptop 05:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sixth, please try to find some real problems on the wiki to engage with instead of that tiny microscopic at this distance quite invisible affront. Believe me, we have them. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

Wait a minute, you were kidding, right? Bishonen | talk 02:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

I'd like to clarify your positions. Are you saying then that it's perfectly permissible then for administrators to be incivil (not only SlimVirgin but now Bishonen) despite WP:CIVIL, blank their talk pages without responding to unanswered questions despite WP:TPG, remove material from webpages talk pages without indicating their reasons why despite WP:VAN and WP:TPG, and instruct editors who disagree with their actions that they shouldn't criticize, inquire, or revert due to WP:AGF? — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike, normally reminding a user of policy is the appropriate approach, but when the user is an admin, you should probably assume that they know about policy. The best course of action here would have been to ask SV why she was removing the comments. That way there wouldn't have been any problem. I don't think anyone's setting out to be uncivil, but it can be frustrating when these sorts of issues snowball into a big issue when they shouldn't have been problematic at all.

For the record, 203.122.215.44 is almost certainly Internodeuser (Zordrac was a sock of that user): same ISP, same interests (Brandt, Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review) and same style. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting how the responses so far have so avidly focused on what I could have done to prevent the situation from escalating. Have any of you looked at it from the viewpoint of the average, well-meaning editor who may not have an intimate knowledge of the Wikipedian bureaucracy? How about, for example, if SlimVirgin had put a edit description that actually described what she was doing? I can tell you I would have never reverted her change if it had said, "Reverted additions to Talk page made by banned user posting anonymously."

Or let's just say she didn't do that, but posit a different response that didn't come across as a "just trust us" pat on the head. Something like, "I appreciate your attempt to safeguard Wikipedia policy, but I actually knew what I was doing there: the user posting anonymously was a user whose account had been banned but who was posting anonymously. If next time you could just check with me prior to reverting my changes, it'll save us all a lot of work. Thanks. -- SlimVirgin".

I can absolutely assure you that if the first had happened, I'd never have reverted, and if the second had happened, I'd have actually probably responded with something akin to, "Oh, geez, sorry about that. Lesson learned. Have a good evening."

Even if she hadn't done the above, if she didn't then refuse to talk about the issue on my talk page, specifically instruct me to head over to her talk page, and then eliminate the discussion outright on her page while describing it using a snark edit description, I probably would've just chalked the situation as an unpleasant experience, and gone on surfing or doing something differently this evening.

I understand that as admins, you want to express solidarity with each other. That sort of kinship is admirable if looked at with the right viewpoint. But I just find it really disturbing that the response here tonight has been seemingly that it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to specifically violate several policies and guidelines, and then, when that violation causes confusion, chide the user as if it was their fault. It implies that once that magic RfA gets granted, you've suddenly got a lot more social weight in disagreements. (Of course, I assume it doesn't hurt if the person has about five thousand barnstars.)

And then when the user comes here to try to hash things out politely without clogging up the dispute resolution process, instead get a lot of snark and "shoo, fly" stuff tossed at them -- thanks, Bishonen -- is even more disturbing.

Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, y'know. A little kindness and courtesy can go a helluva long way. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 03:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither Bishonen nor SlimVirgin were incivil. Civility is not "be totally as kind as posible all the time and give everyone hugs and kisses". Sure, we could all be somewhat more polite at times, but there is no policy stating that being even slightly less and sweetness and light is unacceptable, far from it. Now please, move off of this absurdly miniscule topic and go do something more productive. Forgive & Forget, I suppose.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Move along, nothing to see... FeloniousMonk 03:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar phone number vandal again...

The only edits Macios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Handlebarsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Gunslingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made were to post Alkivar's phone number. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's privacy policy, please remove the following edits from history:

[143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]

Thanks! 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As a note the underlying ip has been blocked by a checkuser Benon 02:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't do it. The page is too goddamn big. Snoutwood (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

<massive sigh of relief> Whoa. That nearly crashed my computer. But it's done. Sorry for the wait, lads. Snoutwood (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

try the devs in future.Geni 04:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I really don't want to do that again. Another reason to get selective revision deletion tools. Snoutwood (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet policy being rewritten by Zephram Stark

I've protected WP:SOCK as it was undergoing a major rewrite to redefine "sock puppet" more tightly, and it appears that at least one of the editors involved in the rewrite, Team Shocker (talk · contribs), was a sock puppet of User:Zephram Stark. [149] I suspect at least one of the others was Zephram too. I've reverted to the pre re-write version. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Sockpuppets rewriting the sockpuppet policy. Great. FeloniousMonk 07:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. What a cheek. He was, of course, rewriting it so that sock puppets would be slightly harder to block e.g. he changed that sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely, rather than should be, and that only "uninvolved" admins may do the blocking, and other similar tweaks in his favor. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Special:Undelete/Von Neumann's catastrophe. It seemed like the right thing to do in this case. — May. 14, '06 [10:53] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm curious why his block was changed from indefinite to six months. I announced a "community ban" a couple months ago on WP:AN and asked for anyone opposed to speak up; nobody did; is he somehow not worthy of a community ban now because...he's doing t even more? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize it had been changed. He should definitely be banned indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an oversight, I imagine. Freak? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back because it must have been a mistake. Zephram is banned for a thousand eternities. A Sunfazer (talk · contribs) changed the tag from indefinite to six months and reverted me when I changed it back, so now I'm wondering whether that's him too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno much about the guy, but I did notice that recently he asked that a certain article that's been used to attack another Wikipedian be unprotected; that raised my antennae. [150] · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno much about the guy either, but Sunfazer's very first edit was to apologize for vandalism, and CheckUser indicates he's been doing quite a bit of vandalizing and sockpuppeting since then. Perhaps this explains his similar interest in trying to weaken strictures against sockpuppeting. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Wallie

I have been concerned over this user's edits on New Zealand related articles for the last week or two. Today I posted an accusation of trolling on his talk page, and he vigorously objected to the accusation. The fullest version of his reply is on my talk page.

Not long afterwards, he made the following edit: [151]. Take a look at the source; it contradicts the edit.

Looking at some of his earlier edits, I find these: [152] and [153] In the first, he says New Zealand has always had excellent relations with France, yet the relationship has been strained over both French nuclear testing in the Pacific and the Rainbow Warrior sinking. Why would anyone add such a paragraph if they were ignorant of these events? In the second, he says NZ felt abandoned by Canada, yet clearly it was Britain that NZ was looking to. This one might have been a typo, but I think the pattern of edits adds up. See the current version of Foreign relations of New Zealand for corrections to the statements.

I don't see this as a matter for mediation, as it isn't simply a dispute between me and him. I can't launch a RFC, as there hasn't been another editor trying to sort this out. Is the appropriate next step to go to Arbcom?-gadfium 07:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? Just change the article(s), if you know something I don't. Don't go into all this bureaucracy. As you say, this is not a dispute between you and I. If you disagree with anything I say, you are free to change it. Please put in what you think, in any foreign relations area, or anything else. You can always discuss content with me. You certainly don't need an RFC or arbcom. What for? Who are you arbitrating against? Yourself? Finally, as they say in GE, "I hate bureaucracy" and "Just do it". Wallie 08:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the accusation of trolling, you should not use this very insulting language, when you have disagreement with someone over content, or even think they are incompetent. Extreme personal attacks of this nature invariably elicit a response. Wallie 08:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article I changed on John Howard, the source does not contradict the "Honest John" statement. There is some editorial comment that does though. I was referring to the public perception, and giving a source to back it up. He is known as "Honest John" is Australia... Gadfium, we cannot get things perfect first time every time we make an edit. Some Australian editors have aleady taken me on about these edits. That's OK. These articles "evolve" over time. (It does appear somtimes that you are acting as some sort of gatekeeper for the Southern Hemisphere.) Wallie 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war in Gorgeous George (TV personality), possibly legal threats

I stumbled upon this article a few months ago. The original article was probably written by people who collect prank calls to his show and was very derisive. I wrote a new version of it, based on the facts in George's own homepage. Now there is a big edit war going on, anon user claiming to be George has posted on the talk page and removed parts of the article, his edits however, have been reverted by an other user. The comments on the talk page hint a bit towards legal action. I would also like to hear if you think this article is even notable enough and how much the article should concentrate on the prank calls. Lapinmies 08:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The subject has made several complaints to OTRS ([154], [155], [156], [157]), but unfortunately noone could deal with them because the request was not specific enough (search didn't turn up this article when I was looking for it only yesterday). Any "legal threats" are probably a result of this. I've protected to stop any more vandalism, and to allow for some investigation into the source. --bainer (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Vr

I've blocked for following accounts as sockpuppets of Vr (talk · contribs):

• KenClarke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AnneOswald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AbdulYasser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please review to see if this is appropriate. I think the evidence is very strong (style of edits, contribution distribution and timing) but as this is the first time I've blocked socks without a checkuser being completed (other than blatant vandals) I wanted to check. Petros471 12:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Punishment

Can any admin, acting alone, issue sanctions (official warnings), or dismissals (blocking), or even executions (permanent blocking) to any user with whom he or she disagrees? Is this done fairly? Is this also the right forum in which to ask this question? Thank you. Wallie 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There are certain things that are clearly outlined by policy that allow an individual decision on blocking. Warnings are a thing anyone can do, administrator or not, although they're worth only as much as the person issuing them is. Permanent blocks can be issued by an individual only in very, very well defined cases, and each of those requires acquiescence by the general community. None of these can be initiated simply for disagreement. Disagreement triggers nothing. All of these require certain actions, not opinions, except for blocking under the naming policy (User:Booger sorts of things, where the block is when the user picks an inappropriate user name). Otherwise, a Request for Comment (RfC) needs to take place on content disputes, a Request for Mediation on personality disputes or disruption disputes, and then actual blocks for life and limitations on editing priviledges come only from the Arbitration Committee. Geogre 13:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there are cases when admins can block from life that don't need the ArbCom to rule (Community bans, vandal only accounts etc.) I agree that admins cannot block only for disagreeing, but without seeing the example you are thinking of (assuming you have something in mind) then I can't really give a full comment to this. Petros471 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock

Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked, he was then unblocked, but the block still seems to be in place and the autoblocker seems to still be working (see Special:Ipblocklist). Could someone please fix this. Thanks. Telex 14:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've tried. Let me know how it goes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole's userpage

Locke_Cole (talk · contribs)'s userpage has frequently been subject to deletion, under m:Right to vanish. However, Locke has so far failed to perform the second part of the "how to exercise one's right to vanish from an online community" procedure, to whit, actually vanishing. Earlier this evening I restored his userpage and talkpage because, as I understand it, one cannot assert the right to vanish but continue to edit. I think Locke has to decide whether he wants to remain on Wikipedia or not. However, my restoration was quickly reverted (oh, no! Spectre of a wheel war!! What shall we do?????). Could we come to a decision on precisely how Locke Cole's userspace is to be treated, please? This indecision is getting tiresome. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The "right to vanish" isn't a process that has to be followed exactly in order to gain the "privilege" of having one's user page deleted. He's fully entitled to have his user page deleted whether or not he ceases to edit. If he wants the page deleted, delete it and leave it be. Whether or not he continues to edit is entirely up to him. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for a user to request deletion of his talkpage to get rid of unsightly (but quite appropriate) warnings, ArbCom notices, etc.? That's what appears to be happening here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was about to add the same thing. Locke Cole has an outstanding ArbCom case and his talk page archives show all sorts of warnings and disputes which appear to me to be relevant. We tick people off for deleting warnings from their talk pages, but in this case it appears that a user has been able to eliminate his entire talk page history with the blessing of an administrator, while continuing to be an active editor. I'd feel slightly differently if he was just editing stuff related to the ArbCom case prior to giving up and disappearing, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --ajn (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't see why we make such a big deal about removing warnings from user pages, and think we need to stop making such a big deal about it as it's mean to newbies and generally not a friendly practice. And I think at this point everyone knows what they need to know about Locke Cole. IMO, we should not rely on user talk pages as a history of conflict for a user. Perhaps we need an administrative history page for a user that is only visible to admins? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

An administrative history page for users is an excellent idea because the worst users, the ones most likely to attract admin attention, are the quickest to remove warnings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a balance and common sense to be applied, immediate removal of warnings tends to suggest (and in some cases certainly is) attempting to hide the warning, so a subsequent warner may be unaware of the previous warning. On the other hand forcing retention of warnings forever seems to serve no purpose. --pgk^(talk) 16:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly. Locke Cole should be free to have his userpage in a deleted state. How he handles his talk page is also pretty much up to him and there's no need to make a big deal about removing warnings. Haukur 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User:24.61.232.186 adding questionnaire to AfD page

An IP user keeps adding a questionnaire of sorts to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Surdukowski. I moved it to the talk page for the AfD because it's taking up a lot of room on the main discussion page and I don't think it's necessary to have. It seems like the user is trying to prove a point through this survey. After I moved it to the talk page (and left a comment on the AfD explaining why I moved it) [158], the user has restored it [159], I removed it again explaining my reasons in the summary [160], and now it has been restored [161]. The user also blanked the talk page after I put the discussion there [162]. Any help or advice anyone could give would be much appreciated. Thanks Metros232 15:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept on the talk page. I've removed it from the discussion again and warned the anon who keeps adding it about 3RR. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Merecat continues attacks

Attacking other editors, striking/editing others' comments (including admin responses to unblock requests, while repeating those requests). Even blocked, this user is compelled to engage in troublesome behavior. [163] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the talk page. Can someone tell me the policy on indef-banned users and their talk pages? Will (^E_@) T 15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy? Who knows. I do know that we've protected indef-banned talk pages in such situations. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone is blocked for a limited time, they can access their talk page. My understanding is that a hardbanned or indefinitely blocked user is not allowed to set foot on WP. That includes on their talk page. Maybe when we indefinitely block someone we should automatically lock their talk page, or the software should be adapted to automatically do that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is always the possibility of an accidental indefinite block. Should such a thing happen and if there was an automatic talk page protecting mechanism, then the user in question would have a very difficult time contacting the one who blocked them. I was once indefinitely blocked for accidentally reverting the main page to a vandalized version, and I didn't have an e-mail in my preferences at the time so I would not have had any way to get myself unblocked, for example. Cowman109^Talk 16:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cow/dog image vandal

There is a vandal operating from Energis UK's IP ranges, defacing user talk pages with dog and/or cow images. Please watch out for him/her. --Nlu (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullying tactics of a proselytising admin

• Check this out. Anwar saadat 17:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Please check this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=53174709 --Bhadani 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)