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

Priory of Sion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection page:

72.49.167.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 128.40.48.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 24.1.70.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 195.92.168.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 195.92.168.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (whom I reasonably suspect to be Paul Smith, overzealous author of the Priory of Sion debunking website, has repeatedly edited the content of the Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail to suit his clearly biased point of view while refusing numerous invitations to discuss a compromise on the talk page of these articles. I am therefore requesting a page semiprotection for these two articles. --Loremaster 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see enough concerted vandalism to warrant a semiprotection. You may want to take this one to WP:RFAr or even to WP:AN/I. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 13:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, can someone look at this user's most recent activities. --Loremaster 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 19:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. However, you should know that this man, who has dedicated his life to debunking the topic of these articles, has been engaging in this unWikipedian behavior for over 2 years now. So I doubt a 24-hour block will be effective... --Loremaster 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible. That's why I suggested an arbitration case, which may be able to enforce some creative remedies. Or, perhaps you might consider working up a TOS case to email to his Internet provider. Posting to WP:AN/I with specifics of what has been happening will also raise its profile and attract the attention of other administrators who can help watch the article. Of course there is only so much any one administrator is empowered to do, you should understand. · Ka

It may be just me, but doesn't it strike you as strange that this is happening less than two days before the film release of The Da Vinci Code? Will (^E_@) T 12:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just a coincidence. As you can see in the archives of the Priory of Sion talk page, Paul Smith has been obsessed with editing these two articles and others to reflect his point of view since April 2004. --Loremaster 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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
• Category:Kurdish provinces ^(vote) and Category:Kurdish cities ^(vote)
  • 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.
• Category:Kurdish inhabited region ^(vote)
  • 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 normaly 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 6,839,326 many articles and 47,578,422 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. Since the nonsense I had to deal with davenbelle, I had been somewhat jumpy... 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. After 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 47,578,422 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 6,839,326 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)

Very well it isnt fiction and is 100% factual. --Cat out 21:46, 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)

Ozgur you have a "I support PKK" userbox, so you have a POV too, in order to maintain WP:NPOV on an article both view points should be presented not just yours, please try to understand this. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you have got it all wrong. What you need to understand is that my support has nothing to do with WP:NPOV because I believe that could be controlled by a person. But I told User:Cool Cat that I did not contribute to the PKK article because I thought it will be wrong and asked him to not contribute too. Ozgur Gerilla 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh but he doesn't. You cannot possibly expect any editor to cease editting a article simply due to the withdrawal of your own insertions. I have a stupendous point of view on Keiji Inafune, but that does not interrupt my ability to leave my feelings at the door. However, it is known that Cool Cat is somewhat aggresisve on this subject, and a small amount of leeway for other subject matter would behoove him. This certianly dies not mean he isn't a valuble contributor to these articles. -Zero^Talk 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the person who gets categories like Kurdish terrorists AND Turkish terrorists deleted. I will 'agressively' remove Category:Kurdistan from articles related to turkish provinces and cities (reasons have been discussed to death). In parallel I will also 'agressively' remove "terrorist" referance from Kurdistan Workers Party even though I belive it is indeed a terrorist organisation. I am impartial when applying NPOV. --Cat out 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero, I wasn't aware of a few rules or the way people behave on subjects such as this one because I was a new Wikipedian. I was making a point to User:Kashk despite its correctness. What I mean is, if there is information users want to add to the article no user should restrict the individual from doing it; I have only ASKED CoolCat to stop contributing because I saw this user making offensive comments on KURDS not the PKK.

CoolCat, I think you need to learn when to use your anger. Agressively removing Category:Kurdistan from articles related to Turkish provinces and cities isn't the right way to act in my thoughts because many unbiased books have used the term for the region. Ozgur Gerilla 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a classical "wrong version" argument there. Oh and btw, I am not an emotionaly motivated person. What offensive comment are we talking about? --Cat out 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Kurds Turks and others use the same fountains, they can elect their leaders and be elected, hell there was a Kurdish President, even Americans dont have a Latino or Black President." that's from you. That's offensive. I don't know where in Turkey you've lived and for how long but in east and especially in southeast Kurds are discriminated and there is evidence for this. So instead of classifying my comments try to understand other point of views on the issue. Ozgur Gerilla 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Which part? Forced labour camps or the Colored seats/fountains? Take a look at 1960s and the US will ya?

For all you know I could very well be a kurd. You can't criticise me for my opinions on some random talk page. I cant even remember when I made that comment.

--Cat out 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The part where you say "hell there was a Kurdish president" as if thats enough for the Kurds and they don't need anything else because they had a president. You probably visited Turkey for a month and you're talking from that experience I've lived there for years and I've seen how many Kurdish politicians or artists can be successful in Turkey. Yilmaz Guney, Leyla Zana and Ugur Mumcu some of those who were killed or jailed because they were Kurdish. Oh, you more likely to come out to be a MHP Turk then a Kurd with comments like those. I am free to criticise you on a comment because your later on actions are pretty aggressive on Kurdish articles. I can remind you when you've made those comments if you think I've made them up. Ozgur Gerilla 01:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Slur is not welcome. Calling someone a "MHP Turk" in my view is more than a violation of WP:Civil and perhaps WP:NPA too. Something tells me your intention was not a compliment.

FYI, I visited turkey for over two years and I was in the SE region. I am not affiliated with any political party in Turkey or outside. My comment was pointing out the obvious, a kurd was elected as president in Turkey. I find that it is fascinating for a member of the ethic minority supposively discriminated to be elected as president. If you are offended by that I cant quite help you.

You are under the impression you are free to do whatever you please. WP:ANB/I is not a place where you get to discuss politics. This is also not the place to criticise anyone. Take it to a talk page, not here.

I will not bother responding to your comments posed here further as per the warning on top of the page. Best to ignore.

--Cat out 10:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead ignore me. I am not here to discuss politics I am here to tell people that User:Cool Cat is disrupting the Kurdish categorization efforts. You've said, for all I know you could be a Kurd and my opinion is with that attitude towards the Kurdish articles you're more likely to be a ultra nationalist Turk. Ozgur Gerilla 12:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

'Aggressively' removing Category:Kurdistan from articles related to Turkish Provinces and Cities constitutes disruption in cases where Kurds are, and have long been, the majority. --Moby 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Its probably the tenth time I am posting the same argument... but here it is:

Do you have a census to back that up? No. Do we have any 'traditional' borders? No. Then it is disrupion to add a Category:Kurdistan as it neither has defined borders nor basis. Every corner of the United States or North America is Native american territory with that analogy.

Kurdistan is a proposed political entity (country), kurds are a cultural entity (ethnicity). My problem is with the proposed political entity in the light of wikipedia policies and guidelines.

--Cat out 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Strawman argument again; no one is characterizing it as a proposed country -- Kurdistan is a geographic and demographic region. --Moby 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh really. So PKK isn't campaigning for a country called Kurdistan... Seems like a pov fork attempt to me. In any case, I will not be pulled into this useless 'debate'.

The questions still are:

• weather or not User:Moby Dick is stalking me.
• weather or not User:Moby Dick is a User:Davenbelle sockpuppet.

If both questions answer a Yes, then an admin intervetion is definately necesary and perhaps more serious mesures.

--Cat out 14:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the stalking sock/question

I suppose I can understand people not commenting much on the evidence presented, as it's hardly short and simple. However I think Cool Cat deserves it to at least be assessed. I'm not at all familiar with this dispute, or the history of either editors editing. There is probably far more to this than I've had time to look at (although I have tried!), so I certainly don't feel confident enough to take any specific action. However, the evidence presented by Cool Cat with regard to "weather or not User:Moby Dick is stalking me." and "weather or not User:Moby Dick is a User:Davenbelle" does seem fairly convincing. It is a shame that for technical reasons the checkuser was inconclusive, so it can't be verified that way. There does seem to be far too many co-incidences listed above to suggest Moby Dick is a new user that had nothing to do with Cool Cat before registering, and does seem to be paying just that bit too much attention to his actions.

I also note that as Moby Dick as stated a desire to 'to be rid of' Cool Cat, and I can't imagine Cool Cat wanting Moby Dick to stay around him, I suggest that both users take each others pages off their watchlists, don't check each others contribs, and don't make any effort to interact with each other (and actively try and leave article disputes to other editors if you come across each other that way). Outside of this situation a quick glance at contribs suggests very different interests, so there should be plenty of editing to get on with away from each other.

Please note by me saying this I am not commenting on Cool Cat's behaviour with relation to the Kurdish related disputes. I don't know enough about that, however he came here with a request for admin review on this specific issue and I feel it should be addressed one way or the other. Petros471 09:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not monitor "User:Moby Dick", I wouldn't have had the time to prepare my evidence has "User:Moby Dick" didn't get me blocked and give me the free time. As per advice of User:InShaneee I have initiated an RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moby Dick as the matter is complex in nature and requires more than a short review here as you point out :) --Cat out 09:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have also assessed these coincidences, and have come to three conclusions:

1. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Moby Dick was a real newbie when the account started to edit in December 2005.
2. Moby Dick is someone with a previous grudge against Cool Cat.
3. I don't know how likely that makes it that Moby Dick is Davenbelle. Pretty likely, I guess, but I wouldn't undertake to say. But I suggest that Moby Dick needs to avoid Cool Cat from now on, or he may find himself in ArbCom trouble in his own right, quite apart from the Davenbelle question. Bishonen | talk 01:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

I am fine with this suggestion but under the circumstances I feel checkuser data of User:Moby Dick should be kept longer than a month (of course concealed from the general public as per privacy reasons). User:Moby Dick, weather or not he is Davenbelle, now knows how to evade detection.

I guess The matter has gotten me quite paranoid, but I'd see this as a wise precation. What do you think?

--Cat out 10:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and harmless. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

I have already stated that I am not User:Davenbelle's sockpuppet. And I am hardly stalking User:Cool Cat. I believe I first noticed him on the CFD for category Kurdistan and took a dim view of his attempt to minimise Kurdish related material. I feel that the Kurds deserve to be fairly presented on Wikipedia. I have looked at his history and this is how I learned of his arbitration case and users like Davenbelle. I also noticed User:Megaman Zero on both of their talk pages.

This whole discussion is supposed to be about his disruption of Kurdish issues and I believe that his accusations are merely an attempt to change the subject. Since I reported this, he been all over my editing, showing up on pages I've just edited and badgering me (see: [40])). He has been hyper-aggressive in all of his talk towards me - I could easily make a counter argument that he is stalking me.

What I want out of this process is a clear path to proceed on towards a consensus on the various Kurd issues. He does not seek a consensus, he seeks his way. --Moby 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The title of this sub section is "back to the stalking sock/question", and hence I am under the impression you are trying to change the subject.

My "hyper-aggressive" tone in question is only demanding sources for the 'contraversial' section you have restored. I am not condoning ruzgar in any way but in order to restore a section on an article, you should have a basis I suppose?

As for the 'stalking' argument, hardly. I monitor many articles related to Turkey, Kurds, Armenian Genocide, etc... especialy high profile articles such as politics related ones. I noticed a revert war on Nationalist Movement Party (I have a script for that). I was suprised to find you as the other party revert waring. Thats one way to seek a consensus... more like force it. What caught my attention most was the false rv vandalism claim by ruzgar. I am not willing to stop monitoring articles I had been monitoring for months just because you have started editing them. My topics of interest currently is limited to Star Trek, Kurds, Turkey, various anime... surely its not all that much...

--Cat out 10:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to imply that you have some sort of priority over me in regard to Kurdish articles? --Moby 12:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see where you got that idea. I monitor a large number of articles for vandalism etc... My bot also monitors every edit made to wikipedia on over 12 languages for vandalism... --Cat out 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I am involved, I have investigated the talk page of the article in question. It is definately a smart move to place the kurdish flag on the talk page of an article about a "far-right nationalist political party in Turkey". How would you define your tone and actions? --Cat out 15:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ruzgar stated that there was no Kurdish flag and I showed him that there is indeed such a flag. I would characterize my tone and action as polite and encouraging. --Moby 12:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Firstly, revert wars are bad taste. I am sure there are better ways to discuss the article rather than pouring gasoline on fire... I am not going to bother discussing the content here. --Cat out 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

MobyPenis and PenisMoby

It would appear that someone created these accounts based on my username:

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

--User:Moby Dick 11:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then report them in WP:VIP. I have gotten 44 such accounts blocked. Shanel had 212 such impostors --Cat out 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

both had been blocked already for several hours before Moby Dick even reported them here. ;) Syrthiss 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably by either my or Curpses script... --Cat out 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

The stalking question and the unanswered question of whether Moby Dick is Davenbelle are quite important here. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek, the following remedy was passed:

Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs)

2) Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat (talk · contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed.

Passed 6-0

If Moby Dick is performing substantially the same function as were Davenbelle, Stereotek and (to some extent) Fadix prior to the arbitration case, then his behavior is of a kind that is clearly described as problematic by the Arbitration Committee.

If Moby Dick is Davenbelle himself (and I think there is a very strong circumstantial case for this) then substantial penalties are merited.

As a corollary, Moby Dick merits a strong administrative warning, which I now issue in my capacities as a sysop on English Wikipedia and Cool Cat's mentor.

I warn you to keep away, as much as is reasonably possible, from articles, talk pages and other pages edited by Cool Cat. There is substantial evidence that you are following a pattern of stalking or harassing behavior towards Cool Cat, similar to that described in the arbitration case. Should you continue on your current course, substantial remedial action may be necessary. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 20 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)

I've got to agree with Reverie here. At DRV/U, some users have pointed out that that page isn't the appropriate place for discussion of Cyde and Gmaxwell's behavior. Although many admins and other users have agreed that the affair was a WP:POINT violation, Gmaxwell is continuing to maintain that his sole intention was a concern for NPOV. I don't think that a heavy sanction is warranted (especially if he has the decency to apologise, as Cyde has done), but perhaps something should be done to show that this sort of thing isn't appropriate behavior. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one administrator who does not endorse their actions. Paul August ☎ 01:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture move warring

Freakofnurture (talk · contribs) has moved more than a hundred pages related to Washington state highways[41] based upon his unilateral interpretation of what the "correct" article names should be.[42] His edit summary seems to indicate that he believes that this is some sort of game, the object of which is to "pwn" whoever he's determined his enemies to be. As User:Tawker notes, move warring on these pages while the matter is pending resolution is a blockable offense.[43] As before, if nothing happens I'll assume that means it's okay for me to move the pages back. Thanks. —phh (^t/_c) 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Move warring is a blockable offense, as is any other kind of warring (wheel, revert, edit). My personal preference would be to leave the pages where they are *now* pending whether the parties in that proposed arbitration accept the arbitration. The statement supplied by Freakofnurture with a slightly incivil edit summary can be submitted to the arbitrators as evidence on the side of SPUI et al. Moving them back would just be another salvo in the move war, however objectionable the current naming is to the other side in the dispute. Just my opinion. --Syrthiss 15:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture at least appears to have a solid reference to base the move on. Is this reference in some way suspect? Kim Bruning 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference doesn't strike me as neccessarily relevant. Imagine Nevada's state highways are officially named "Nevada State Route XXX", as opposed to Washington's official "State Route YYY". Wikipedia reasonably might still prefer to use a uniform name scheme for all US state highways, so one of the official nomenclatures would have to be ignored. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats my read on the situation as well. --Syrthiss 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the reference is suspect. The point of dispute is whether "correct" should be the principle to apply in deciding what the article names should be (WP:NC(CN) gives several instances in which it is not). Regardless, the facts of the matter are that Freakofnurture is aware that this dispute is taking place, is aware (if he keeps an eye on this page, as all administrators should) that multiple admins have said that move warring on these pages is a blockable offense, yet chose to aggravate the move wars anyway. —phh (^t/_c) 15:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Especially seeing the length of the dispute and the RFAR, moving the pages again was inappropriate. Snoutwood (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat tiring. Could everybody at least agree upon not moving hundreds of pages around until it's clear what becomes of the ArbCom case? -- grm_wnr Esc 15:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. For those of you who'd like a link, here is it. Snoutwood (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest not moving the pages back, on the grounds that if moving them while mediation is pending is bad, unmoving them would be equally bad, and presumably you would like to take the high ground here (perhaps only minimally higher in this case, but still...) Thatcher131 16:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't planning on it. Snoutwood (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that was a general "dont move them" to the assembly, not a "dont move them snoutwood!!1!!" ;) --Syrthiss 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Thatcher131 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... indentation confusion. :) Snoutwood (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that moving the pages back would be equally bad—if anything, not moving them back is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior. Regardless, if I am being asked to "take the high road" by leaving them where they are for now, then I shall take the high road (a road I seem to be taking a lot these days, with no reciprocation from the other side… but never mind). However, I'd appreciate a clarification of the situation here, because I can only see three possibilities:

• Move-warring over these pages is a blockable offense, and therefore Freakofnurture will be blocked for having done it.
• Move-warring over these pages is not a blockable offense, and therefore anyone may move them with impunity, although they shouldn't.
• Move-warring over these pages is a blockable offense for PHenry, but not for Freakofnurture.

…and I'd really like to know which of these rules I can expect to be subject to today and in the future. —phh (^t/_c) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking exists only to prevent offenses, not punish them. If Freakofnurture isn't move warring anymore, then there's no point in blocking him - for the time being. And anyhow, the idea on Wikipedia is to take the high road. Someone has to do it, and it sure as hell won't be the other guy. Also, maintaining the status quo isn't meant to "reward" any kind of behaviour. It's meant to give us time to chill out and talk about the issue rather than bash our heads together repeatedly. The encyclopaedia won't die if people are directed to the wrong article for a day or two. Johnleemk | Talk 18:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving them back would be equally bad because it would start and/or perpetuate an edit war, and the only way edit wars ever solve content disputes is when one side or the other gets worn out and quits. I express the hope that some kind of dispute resolution process (article RFC, user RFC, a policy debate somewhere, or RFAR) will lead to a settled final answer and the articles can be moved to their final names then. In the meantime, names of the style Washington State Route 599 should all redirect to State Route 599 (Washington), so ordinary users of the encyclopedia should not be affected.

Problem is it's been 3 months and neither side has tired. Infact both sides have just become more determined they're right and now it's moved beyond the point where either side will budge per vendetta that they are "right". The only recourse at this point is a binding decision by the Arbcom that is currently in progress. JohnnyBGood t c 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Move warring over these pages is a blockable offense, for Freakofnurture and PHenry (and SPUI, and anyone else) IMO. I personally am not inclined to block FoN now because it is after the fact, though I might have blocked him at the time if I (1) had noticed it and (2) I had been cognizant of the RFAr related to such moves. Personally I would haved probably just asked him to stop, but thats me. I think it was a good faith move based on what he felt was compelling support, based on a possibly erroneous assumption (to be decided by the arbcom if all sides agree). I wanted to thank you for your forbearance in taking the high road. As you say, too often people feel that two questionable actions balance out at a reasonable action...when really they are equally questionable. --Syrthiss 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to add him to the RfAr and leave them as is, assuming the previous names redirect. Reverting all those movies would probably be messy. --Avillia 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because this bloody stupid move warring has been going on for so long, I'm inclined to block on sight any editor who renames any state highway article (that's not an obvious typographical error).

I would do this for the good of the encyclopedia—the editors involved are generally productive, helpful, positive contributors (mostly). It's a terrible waste to soak up their time and energy on such a bloody stupid set of wars, and I'd like to think they will appreciate an intervention from their friends and colleagues to help them break this bloody stupid habit. Is there support for such an intervention? We can save them if we make the effort! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So you'd block me for doing this? Seems like disruption to me. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's so complicated about this? Most pages linking to individual, state-maintained, numbered highways will be other pages related to the same state. Within the boundaries of each state, such highways are referred to by their proper names, i.e. "State Route 599" or "SR 599". However, since other highways with the exact same name also exist in other states, the parenthetical disambiguation is used. In the infrequent event that these are referenced from an an article pertaining to a different state, then specifying forms "Washington State Route 599" or "Washington's SR 599" can be used for clarification to the reader. Furthermore, User:Atanamir has a letter from the Washington State Department of Transportation supporting this nomenclature.

What more do you need? Demanding that I be blocked and reverted on proceedural grounds is ridiculous, because:

• This is not a move war.
• I moved the pages once each.
• They had not been recently moved.
• The moves were based on newly presented evidence from WSDOT.
• This "moving a bunch of roads at once is a blockable" idea is something Rschen7754 came up with so he could block SPUI and Locke Cole, with whom he was engaged in personal conflict.

Suggesting that "not moving them back (to the wrong titles) is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior" is itself tantamount to rules-lawyering of the highest order. — May. 16, '06 [03:59] <freak|talk>

Uh huh. This "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so nyaah!!" attitude is exactly why the arbitration case needs to be taken up, the sooner the better. —phh (^t/_c) 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(Translation: "don't cloud the issue with the facts"). Let me know if you have a satisfactory reason to moving the pages back. I have given several reasons to leave them at the titles I moved them to. If, however, you are firmly convinced that anybody agreeing with SPUI is full of shit, then it's a waste of time to even talk about this. — May. 16, '06 [06:53] <freak|talk>

God! Haven't you been paying attention? Or do you just not care what anyone says unless they agree with you? No one is arguing about the facts. The question is about the best way to apply the existing principles and conventions to these articles—a question for which there are valid arguments on both sides. But you've decided that none of this matters because you're right and evvv-erybody else is wrong, so you prefer to bludgeon everyone with your move warring rather than run the risk that the normal discussion process might arrive at a solution that you disagree with. —phh (^t/_c) 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You could go on all day about how you don't like me, but once again, do you have any rebuttal other than smearing my name? If so, spit it out. — May. 16, '06 [16:19] <freak|talk>

Well, I'm someone who doens't dislike you, and I think you made a very poor call, right or wrong, in moving those pages. The issue's been mediated, edit-warred over, and is in an RFAR. Moving those pages did nothing but exacerbate the problem. I do not understand how you can justify your moves by saying "I'm right." Wait until the RFAR is over, then follow the decision. My sentiments echo Tawker's below; however, I will also add that had I seen it happening I would certainly have blocked you for it. Snoutwood (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide a rebuttal other than smearing your name. However, to quote what PHenry has already said, "No one is arguing about the facts. The question is about the best way to apply the existing principles and conventions to these articles." WP:D is clear that parentheses is not the only way to disambiguate on Wikipedia, furthermore, it's not even the preferred way. To quote, "When there is another word or more complete name that is equally clear, that should be used." (emphasis mine). Thus, in these cases, the more complete name (Washington State Route 539) should be used.

Also, you state in your post: "However, since other highways with the exact same name also exist in other states, the parenthetical disambiguation is used." (again, emphasis mine) This may have been a grammatical oversight on your part, or you may be referring to your newly imposed standard for Washington. However, in the 28 out of 50 states (30 counting Washington and California), the articles are named with the state name first.

(AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MD, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, VT, VA, WV, and WI, plus D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.V.I., since I know someone's going to ask.)

An additional two are named not with parenthetical disambiguation, but with local common names: Kansas with K-xx and Michigan with M-xx.

Now I'm not saying that just because it's 28-18 (leaving out Kansas, Michigan, California, and Washington), that must mean that I'm right and you're wrong, because that's not what it means, and I'm not saying that this constitutes some sort of official naming convention, because it doesn't. What this does mean, though, is that the "State Route X (StateName)" format doesn't follow any sort of naming convention either. To rephrase your statement more accurately, "Even though other highways with the exact same name also exist in other states, the parenthetical disambiguation is not used with any sort of regularity. -- Northenglish 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

News media may quite commonly use the phrase "Attorney Jack Thompson" to distinguish him from "Actor Jack Thompson", but these designations are not part of either man's proper name. Given two topics with the same proper name, we disambiguate them using words or phrases in parentheses, ideally something short, and something that best illustrates how they differ from one another, e.g. Jack Thompson (attorney), Jack Thompson (actor). If we have two people with the same profession, say, two U.S. Congressmen, we would disambiguate by state, or if they were from the same state, we could go by term of office. Since each state, in and of itself, has its own nomenclature for numbered roads, we should, in the innumerable cases where these names are non-unique, disambiguate by specifying in parentheses, the name of the state where each road is located. For a road with a non-unique name that is not limited to one state, we sometimes disambiguate using a region, e.g. Route 26 (New England).

As for the highways in Michigan named "M-XX", see this clarifying post by User:CBessert (Christopher J. Bessert, webmaster of michiganhighways.org, an expert witness, if you will). Let's be clear here: M-1, etc., are not "local common names", as stated above, but rather the proper names given to them by the Michigan Department of Transportation (www.michigan.gov/mdot), which refers to them by no other names than "M-XX". However, this naming system collides with (among other things) that of various firearms, making the disambiguation "... (Michigan highway)" necessary. — May. 19, '06 [05:39] <freak|talk>

Tawker's 2 cents

Blocking anyone for a week old event seems to be rather pointless and I am not suggesting anyone in any way shape or form does such. With respect to moving it back, it is best to simply avoid any more moves until a reasonable response to this dispute has been settled. As far as I am concerned there is no right or wrong naming scheme, we have a dispute and lets settle it like the mature human beings we are not 2 year olds in a sandbox -- Tawker 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ageism

I feel there is quite a bias against older people on Wikipedia. Many of the administrators on Wikipedia are university students, who are quick to call older Wikipedians insulting names. Older people are not used to these attacks and sometimes respond incorrectly, resulting in a ban. I know personally older people who have been banned, and sometimes for good, and think that it may be a culture issue. Are older people welcome on Wikipedia, or is it mainly the preserve of university students? wallie 19:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the university students tend to be among more active Wikipedians, but there are several older Wikipedians here (among them some of our most respected Wikipedians). In what pages do you see this sort of reverse ageism? --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Obvious ageist comments fall under WP:CIVIL. Violations of WP:CIVIL are easily acted upon; report them here. FeloniousMonk 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of us admins are pretty old.  :) Can you give us some diffs to the problem edits you're referring to? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean it is time to form the Wikipedia:association of geriatric wikipedians? (PS - that was a joke!) Raul654 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Beware of the beans.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Too late. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Better yet: Wikipedia:Association of Geriatric Editors (or WP:AGE for short) Raul654 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely sum it up (in our best Kanye West voice) as Jimbo Wales doesn't care about old people. We oughn't to piss older folks, though; Modern Maturity, IIRC, has the largest circulation of any magazine in the world (surely that's a description over which one may quibble, but AARP, I think, claims the title for MM). (Are we really without an MM article, or am I just missing it somewhere?) Joe 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just discovered that the magazine is now billed as AARP the Magazine; nevertheless, we don't seem to have an article, as evidenced by the omission of any Wikilink in the bio of managing editor John Stoltenberg. I know, I know, I should start the article myself, but I wonder if there's anyone with more knowledge of the subject who might take it on (apologies for cluttering AN/I with this, but I thought I ought to correct my previous comment). Joe 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to get here so late, my knees aren't what they used to be, now what was the question again? Do you have to already have a zimmer to join AGE or just remember when all this was fields? (Thanks Theresa, you've given me the best laugh all day) --Alf ^melmac 20:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This all seems to confirm the fact that you generally have to be young and preferably a student at a university to be taken seriously on Wikipedia. It would be interesting to get a statistical breakdown for administrators by age, and whether or not they are university students. wallie 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been shaking my cane furiously at all these punk kids walking on my lawn for a year now, but they don't have any respect. I take a nap, and they're sticking tags and boxes over all my lovely articles! Geogre 23:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On a slightly more serious note, I'd just like to point out that of the hundreds of users I've interacted with here, I've only known the age of a handful. I'm sure I'm not unique in that sense. --InShaneee 00:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen much ageism towards seniors, but I have seen some ageist remarks towards younger editors (like the 16-year-old User: Infinity0. If you are serious then some diffs would be helpful. I would be interested in helping illustrate this type of bias (btw, I'm a college student). The Ungovernable Force 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen much ageism towards seniors either, in fact the slurs I get from our less polite users, besides "bitchonen" and its cognates, are usually on the lines of "immature", "14-year-old", "junior higher" ("Jimbo, I know you hate junior highers like Bishonen and Schvatjester"[44]). I realize you guys don't know how funny that is — would you like me to tell you my memories of the French Revolution, anybody? Bishonen | talk 03:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

I agree. I've never seen a serious ageist comment made by a younger to an older contributor, but I have seen one or two ageist comments directed by an older to a younger contributor. Wallie, perhaps you could be a little more specific about what ageist comments you've witnessed? Snottygobble 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I have gotten patronising comments from older people, however - one of them is right on this page. (Although the age given there is off by two years.) If there's much of an ageist movement against old folk, I haven't seen it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always written "old," and now that I am past middle age it just fits. As for "ageism," I keep saying it, and nobody seems to hear me: it is deeds, not persons, that matter in virtual space. As such, there is a very clear age skew among Wikipedia editors, but not in terms of actual agism. Instead, we have overly enthusiastic promotion of webcomics, web forums, pop songs, pop TV phenomena, and "memes" (ugh! anyone incapable of seeing the absurdity of that term is already a victim) and overly enthusiastic persuance of feuds, conspiracies, and campaigns. In other words, these things are the result of the age skew. Yes, there is a big, big bulge in the age curve at Wikipedia in the 25 and under segment, and it's self-limited by literacy requirements on its low end, but all of that could be written by desperate middle age folks. Our articles, our deeds, show the skew. Our articles and our deeds are a young skew. But, since it's always deeds, not persons, I think we can demonstrate the advantages of experience to the younger users or we can demand them. Demanding rarely works. Geogre 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about the dismissals aimed at the young -- "ageist comments" aimed at the young -- no one knows anyone's age, so I take these as either clueless and stingless or as comments on the quality of the words. In the case of Bishonen, it's obviously absurd to think that she has been writing in an immature way, so I imagine that those insults were just the flailing arms of a drowning (and probably very young) person. Otherwise, if there is anything to them at all, the message is probably, "You are writing in too many generalizations/with too little knowledge of the context/with too much enthusiasm/too breathlessly/with too much self-satisfaction" but said in a hamfisted way as "immature." Geogre 03:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? Junior higher. 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

Don't be a poopy head! Can't Win for Losing

George raises a relevant point, but this is a matter of systematic bias, not ageism. JoshuaZ 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, I'm a university student, and I respect the editors who make great contributions. Unless I've seen someone's picture, or they make childish remarks (!), I usually have no idea how old editors are. ~MDD4696 03:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious what Wallie means by "older". I'm over 50 and said so when I ran for ArbCom; I've never gotten a comment that's indicated any other editors gave a damn one way or another. So maybe if there is a bias against aged editors, I'm still too young to qualify or something. I'll admit that I do sometimes make ageist comments: specifically, if I find myself needing to block a shared school IP for juvenile behavior, my reason for blocking will often be "schoolchild vandalism". It hasn't occurred to me so far to keep an eye out for bad behavior in, say, the 70-plus crowd. Maybe I should. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe quite a few of the Arbitration Committee are not young. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The "age problem" seems to crop up when an editor appears to conform to one an age-related stereotypes (e.g., the hackneyed "teenager living in his parent's basement", who seems to be at the heart of every USENET flamewar while at the same time having written the entire Linux kernel while skipping all of his classes). I'd guess that this is because there are so few clues from other Wikipedians about their age, forcing us to project our own expectations upon others.

I'll confess that there was a time when I thought I was the oldest contributor to Wikipedia, with 15-20 years on everyone else (yes, I am older than Jimbo); after having been to a few Wikimeetups, I was very happy to find that there were at least a couple of Wikipedians in my age group, which made me far more comfortable here. (And uncomfortable when I realize that I am acting like a hackneyed "teenager living in his parent's basement".) -- llywrch 23:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC), who edits from his attic.

User:Hardouin

This Wikipedian has has a long history of antisocial behaviour and abusive and wholesale reverts. As of a few minutes ago he has a) reverted, across several pages, week-old improvements resulting from many past complaints, a month of discussion, weeks of building consensus not to mention all the work to make the changes. What's more, after I cancelled the abusive reverts, the same followed me around page by page to revert again.

This is but the pinnacle of a long list of disruptive behaviour to many of the pages this user contributes to. It seems that this user sees Wiki as a place to concretize his/her knowledge and opinions, and this in spite of the contributions/questions of other contirbutors about/to his/her work. Never partaking in any constructive or preemptive discussion, this user simply reverts any edit not of his or her taste - and at best searches even the most trifling 'error' to 'justify' a wholesale revert - and if there is no error, 'insinuates' one. This behaviour is seen as arrogant, antisocial, and, most of all, discouraging to other contributors.

This is but the 'act' of it, but recent days have but confirmed this user's pollution of many articles with suggestive, selective and omissive informatons that would suggest a reality that is clearly unreferencable and a joke to those who know better. If you would like to see evidence of this please see to the Talk:Paris pages - there's tons of archives to this end. I have compiled a (long) selection of this user's abuses and misbehaviours over the last months and can provide them when the need be. THEPROMENADER 20:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent behaviour by Hardouin has indeed reched new depths, where Hardouin will take possession of an article and block any kind of further edit. This has been observed on a large array of articles, such as [45], Gare de Cergy Saint-Christophe, [46]. The sus nammed editor enages in an edit war, not justifying his other than what can be described as he doesn't like it. On many occasions was Hardouin confronted our comments dismissed, deleted [47]. It has come to the unfortunate point where no length of talks, justifications can make Hardouin refrain from blocking articles, even in the case of articles having reached featured status on portals Talk:Gare de Cergy Saint-Christophe. I have had to create a trollbox to keep messages left by Hardouin, these can be found on my talk page. Captain scarlet 06:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Amongst vague and general accusations (antisocial behavior?), ThePromenader is refering to a template which he recently created (Template:Major French Cities) and with which he intends to replace the template Template:Large French Cities which has been in existence for more than a year now (see Template:Toulouse infobox or Template:Bordeaux infobox for the original individual versions of the template, before they were standardized into Template:Large French Cities). I have questioned the motives for this new template, and exposed some of the misconceptions of ThePromenader about French cities at Talk:Paris.

Yet instead of clearly answering the points raised or acknowledging errors when I point them out, all I ever get from this user are baseless accusations and hot blooded messages. I can provide a list of ThePromenader's hot blooded and insulting messages that I have received over the months if an administrator wants to have a look at it. When I say insulting, I mean messages in which I am being called a "wily little creature" and other such niceties. Despite this, I have never filed any complaint against ThePromenader, and I believe the proper place for the strong disagreement between ThePromenader and I is mediation rather than incidents, but if ThePromenader insists on treating this at incidents I can bring clear evidence of his oft violent messages. Hardouin 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I come here after anulling User:Hardouin's third consecutive revert to weeks of work by many - one more and we're in WP:3RR territory. It's a pity that English Wikipedia's French pages still have so few knowledgable contributors that far-flung "concepts" imposed by one can remain unaltered, uncorrected and unsourced for so long, but this can be in no way an argument against improvement and change. The above insinuates much but says nothing, but the facts are this: Our collective work, discussion and consensus of the past weeks, involving, amongst others, a longtime Wiki administrator, has been singlehandedly reverted by a single opinioned contributor who can offer no clear justification for having reverted - three times - and the third after I took the time to bat down the last round of vague allusions that, under no circumstances could ever merit a total, wholesale and widespread revert. This user didn't even look at the template before reverting (proven), and didn't even read the talk page before reverting (now proven). Go figure. THEPROMENADER 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the infobox proposed by ThePromenader is not a "collective work" as ThePromenader falsely pretends, but is solely his responsability. Other users have participated in the discussion at Talk:Paris, but it is ThePromenader alone who designed his infobox and decided what to include in it, and what not to include. In particular, I am sorry if this is becoming a little technical, but ThePromenader insisted on including urban area population figures in his infobox alongside the usual metropolitan area population figure found in most other city infoboxes on Wikipedia. According to ThePromenader, the concept of metropolitan area doesn't accurately describe French cities, whereas the concept of urban area is better suited, says he. Unfortunately this is only personal opinion, and absolutely nothing shows or proves that the concept of metropolitan area is less suited to French cities than it is suited to, say, US or German cities. Absolutely no other user asked for urban area figures to be included in the infobox, yet ThePromenader included them anyway. To call this "collective" work is really stretching the meaning of the word "collective". Hardouin 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I did the graphic work - so what? It's my trade - go figure. I asked each and every person what they thought should go in it, and this personally on their talk page, and the result of this is there for all to see on the Talk:Paris Page. Do comments like "good work" mean nothing? This is not a discussion about the 'merit' of the metropolitan area - which is dumb because the MA info is there. You have absolutely no excuse for your behaviour, and if you are unable to find suitable sources or even build consensus for your unshared and unreferencable theories then tough luck - It wasn't time that was lacking - this has been going on for months! Enough already. THEPROMENADER 00:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of the nature of the disagreement between ThePromenader and I, I propose to move this thread to mediation. If no compromise is possible, then arbitration will be the last solution. Hardouin 00:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I proposed mediation six months ago, ignored and refused by you. I of course am for mediation, but to what end I'm not sure - it's editing habits that must change. The reason this thread is here is because of your inability to deal with fact/reason and other contributors. A bit late after your having broken the WP:3RR rule with no viable justification at all - all on your own. But whatever. I await the results of this. THEPROMENADER 01:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You proposed mediation six months ago and supposedly I refused? When? Where? Can you prove it? If you really offered mediation and I refused it, it shouldn't be difficult to find a trace of this with all the history functions on Wikipedia. If you can't find a trace of it, I'm sorry but you'll have to apologize for what you just said. Hardouin 01:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. You want also my requests for Third opinion, IRC chats, and Admin requests for help/advice as well? I've got quite a file on you already compiled. In fact, I warned you about it around three months ago - I hoped I'd never have to use it. Even your sock-puppetry 'event' is there. THEPROMENADER 01:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You've got "quite a file" on me? Oh dear. Stalking, stalking... I certainly want to see that mediation offer from 6 months ago though, if it really exists. Hardouin 01:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Silly to put it like that, granted, but yes, I've made an archive of all your abusive reverts - for starters. Hold with the totally unjustified 'stalking' claim destined for once-only readers. Find the mediation link here - you of course blanked my message about this from your talk page. In that link you can also find the other forms of aid/mediation I'd initiated previously. THEPROMENADER 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your mediation link shows: a- that you posted that mediation request 5 months ago without leting me know of it (what a nice attitude!), and b- that I didn't turn it down, since I didn't know about it in the first place. You're making a fool of yourself now Promenader. Hardouin 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm an outsider to all of this (and not an admin). Not to make light of the troubles obviously involved here, but this is reading like a parody of a Wikipedia dispute (albeit highly entertaining and well-written). Hopefully you can find a mediator you both respect to at least advise on your interactions with each other, if not on the details of the content dispute. So much heat on an issue like this is not only unfortunate for those involved, but reflects badly on Wikipedia in general. David Oberst 08:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What THEPROMENADER is trying to show is that Hardouin's behaviour has come to tarnish the pleasure of other users on Wikipedia, blocking changes on articles and not participating in discussions when a member comes to suggest an update. At worst Hardouin's revert and edits show inaccurate and erronous statements which THEPROMENADER has no doubt a collection of. I suggest that THEPROMENADER does indeed show what a few of us believe so that this detrimental behaviour comes to an end, since no short warnings are taken into account and blanked, along with any kind of messaging on Hardouin's Talkpage. You say you are seeing this from an outsider's point of view, I can assure you it is only the tip of the iceberg. Replies have indeed been well written, because they are true, and researched and supplemented by facts, just as Wikipedia should be. Captain scarlet 08:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To better understand Captain Scarlet's point of view here, people should have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive94#User:Captain scarlet and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Captain scarlet. No further comments needed. Hardouin 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you have been blocked twice for breaking the 3RR rule, and no stirring trouble or personal attacks can take that away from you. This warning concerns our behaviour, and no one else's. Captain scarlet 23:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Pinkboy7

Pinkboy7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): I spotted this editor because he changed Aktenzeichen XY... ungelöst and America's Most Wanted around to say that the former was inspired by the latter, rather than the other way around (Aktenzeichen was in fact on the air 20 years before Most Wanted). I then noticed he was adding Category:Crime Epics to a lot of real crime-related articles such as Bonanno crime family, a category which a) doesn't exist, b) probably never will and c) certainly isn't suited to real-life crime families - plus he wasn't only adding them, but replacing legit categories such as Category:Five Families.

I asked him to stop three times, the last time making it clear that I would block, then having had no response, I blocked him for an hour ~20 minutes ago in the hope of getting his attention. He's obviously not a vandal, but by replacing good categories with bad ones he was damaging articles, and when he kept doing it after three requests to stop without even trying to communicate, it was either block him or leave him. Please keep an eye on his contributions when his block expires. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reblocked indefinitely. This is a return of Stoneboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fearboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Do NOT mistake this for some clueless newbie, this is a vandal. -- Curps 04:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You forgot Painboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Kimchi.sg 04:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In hindsight, here's an even older sockpuppet: Carboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same general pattern: petty messing with category and stubs, never ever replying to any talk inquiries, a particular focus on crime-related articles, some minor deletion of content, etc. That particular sock stopped of its own accord, not yet having done anything serious enough to get blocked (but I've blocked it now). -- Curps 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde

Please defrock this rogue admin a.s.a.p., see Template talk:User kon. Intentionally ignoring CFD, CDP, and DRV demonstrates a fundamental disrespect of the commnunity. -- Omniplex 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hold your horses. All he did was change the name of the category from "user con" to "Wikipedians who use the Yahoo! Widget Engine". Ashibaka tock 00:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Category:Wikipedians who use the Yahoo! Widget Engine actually, so it needs a rename either way. Kotepho 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed by removing the double Category: (obviously that part was accidental). Omniplex, is renaming Category:User kon to Category:Wikipedians who use the Yahoo! Widget Engine really so unreasonable?! --Cyde Weys 00:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's uglier than "User:kon" - I submitted it erroneously for the first CFD in March, and I still don't like it, but CDP says "use TFD", the DRV fixed my error, a 2nd erroneous CFD got no consensus, and ignoring CDP+DRV+CFD for this bogus category with a more ugly name makes no sense. -- Omniplex 08:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, Cyde is really growing on me. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 00:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I need to be desysopped immediately for renaming a category. /me sighs. --Cyde Weys 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

renaming a category a category without community consensus that is. 70.48.250.138 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Read up on it. This category renaming was soooo obvious I didn't need to waste other people's time at CFD. --Cyde Weys 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet If I boldly edit your userpage, i surely would've been banned. 70.48.250.138 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, it depends on what you put on there. Try me. --Cyde Weys 01:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first case in which Cyde has closed on his own whim and against consensus; but if Cyde is going to get away with consistently being judge in his own case:

• Unblocking himself early because it was inconvenient;
• Closing his own TfD nominations 3 days early and against consensus;
• Blocking Salix Alba for notifying members of a cat he had put on CfD;

Then we certainly shouldn't do anything for this. Septentrionalis 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• It really bugs you that I can block and unblock myself and you can't, doesn't it :-P Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Trolling again, Cyde? Septentrionalis 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Defrocked"? Cyde, do you wear frocks? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• My frocks are all pink, lacy, and made by Gucci. And no one is going to be taking my frocks away. --Cyde Weys 02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You may be interested in Male Unbifurcated Garment.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• You'll be personally excommunicated by Jimbo. Ashibaka tock 02:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo has no place on the internet. Move for lifetime ban immediately. -- Daniel Davis 02:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• As someone who strongly opposes and disagrees with almost everything User:Cyde does concerning userboxes, I can confidently state that the above category-renaming is an extremely reasonable and good one, and am honestly amazed that such a ridiculously trivial and clearly beneficial change is what we're discussing here, not something like the {{user christian}} debacle. Come on. Is this a joke? This must be a joke. -Silence 02:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How many userboxes has this user deleted in the last few days. And all of them against the waiting time which is specified for TfD. I would say that this gross breach of policy would be worth a very close look at. Its not acceptable to have an admin running around doing what they personally want while ignoring consensus and policy. Ansell Review my progress! 07:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that Cyde is also the author of this version of {{user Christian}} template who, by changing this userbox, embelished more than a hundred userpages with a spinning crucifix on top of an article-length rant. Friendly Neighbour 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And you're the one that violated WP:OWN and WP:AGF by claiming that the userbox was somehow sacred (pardon the pun) and editing it in a way you didn't like was vandalism. If you don't want a userbox on your user page to change, subst it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please show me the edit where I claimed userboxes are sacred. You seem to mix up my (twice) reverting what I deemed (and still deem) a simple vandalism by Cyde & Gmaxwell (please note that arguing an edit is vandalism is explicitely allowed under WP:NPA) and my voice in discussion saying that templates should be treated more lentient than articles under WP:OWN because the persons who don't like a template may create an alternative one. Since when discussing WP:OWN is breaking it? Also, do you mean that arguing that what Cyde and Gmaxwell did was vandalism means breaking WP:AGF? I believe that WP:AGF is about accusing about bad intentions, not criticizing past deeds: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming 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.". Please show me an edit where I assumed malice. I can show you one where Cyde assumed malice on my part (like this one - please compare the tone of Cyde's edit with the one by myself he responds to). Friendly Neighbour 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What you're also doing is violating WP:CIVIL by bringing up this incidenct at every possible opportunity, on every page, in every context. --InShaneee 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. None of the uncivility examples in the policy bears any similarity to reminding a user's previous tresspass on WP:ANI. You must be joking. Friendly Neighbour 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the discussion of admin abuse of powers, particularly in a situation where the admin in question has brought up their POV relating to userboxes on almost every template they can find, without at least letting the situation reach consensus and then cool down sufficiently. You can hardly call that civil if you believe that the discussion of the events are not civil. I call it an admin making a WP:POINT Ansell Review my progress! 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star uploading unsourced images

Wiki-star (talk · contribs) has been uploading unsourced images for months now, despite many warnings. This diff [48] from his pre-blanking talk page shows a sample of the warnings left by OrphanBot and others. On several occasions other users have asked Wiki-star to provide sources for his images, but he simply replies that he is working on them; looking at his backlog of OrphanBot warnings, he hasn't sourced a single one, all the while continuing to upload new images without sources. Isopropyl 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• (Dare I show my face around here?) Well, I'd say that an administrator needs to warn him; if he doesn't respond in a reasonable length of a time a block is probably in order. Has he gotten any non-OrphanBot warnings? Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have, here. He hasn't uploaded anything since I've talked to him (that I can see, anyways), but I don't know how long that'll last. Snoutwood (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest we table the matter unless he starts up again. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have warned him on a number of occasions, with later warnings suggesting that he stop uploading images until he sorts the existing ones out. Isopropyl 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If the user doesn't follow this advice, indef-block until they commit to it. It would be useful if we could turn off a particular user's ability to upload files. Then again, being this sloppy with sourcing their file uploads may be an indicator for a lack of respect for the project that we can do without. Jkelly 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea's been kicked around before but it bumps up against the notion of being a wiki, to say nothing about being additional instruction creep. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a wiki doesn't give us the right to infringe copyrights. If he uploads any more unsourced images, block him until he promises not to do it again. If he does it again after that, block indefinitely. Enforcing our copyright policy isn't instruction creep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand Mackensen's objections, but I wonder if a proscription against a user's uploading images (where he/she has continually contravened our policies with respect to tagging and sourcing) is much different from a proscription against a user's editing a specific articles or articles w/r/to a certain topic where the user has been disruptive on such article or topic. I imagine that we'd not want image uploading-specific blocks to be doled out only by the ArbComm, as almost every article- or subject-specific ban is, but I think that, where a user may be productive on the whole but disruptive relative to certain specific articles/categories/actions, it's appropriate that we take action such that the users productive edits may continue whilst the destructive edits cease. Joe 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be up for at least a short block on this user. Talking to him is impossible; you get mostly wild paranoia mixed with some patronizing comments. Isopropyl 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can do. OrphanBot currently inspects every image upload; it would be trivially simple to check for uploads by a given user and tag them for speedy deletion. --Carnildo 01:42, 18 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)

The IP is static... Is that a special kind of humour? Man man man, you have blocked AOL Europe. Why nobody tells you ? 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ripe.net/fcgi-bin/whois?searchtext=195.93.60.132 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.33 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, whoever that up there is, he's right [49]. You should probably consider shortening the block, given that AOL IPs are almost always shared. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See this too. I unblocked the IP as well. Prodego ^talk 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am quite tired of MutterErde's manipulations. It may be a shared IP, but MutterErde is the only one using it here, and it is obviously not the usual AOL-style dynamic IP, because he always has the same one. I have blocked it again, albeit for a shorter duration. Please note that as an indefinitely banned user, MutterErde is not permitted to post here or at individual talk pages. Chick Bowen 16:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL does seem to provide DSL service in Germany, but 195.93.60.132 seems to resolve as "cache-frr-ae04.proxy.aol.com", so it looks like it may be an AOL caching proxy instead of someone's semi-permanent DSL IP. No way of knowing how many people the proxy might be serving, but there might be at least the possibility of affecting other AOL editors there with a long block. The unsigned comment from 195.93.60.33 resolves to another proxy (cache-frr-ab01.proxy.aol.com), so MutterErde may either be able to access from a number of these by resetting his AOL connection, or have had a friend also on the AOL Germany network make the post. David Oberst 16:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I guess we'll just have to keep putting short-term blocks on whatever IPs he uses when he shows up. Since he's currently in the habit of signing his posts, he's not difficult to spot. I'm sure he'll be along to comment on this conversation sooner or later. Chick Bowen 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi folks, is there any reason why User:MutterErde´s user page is suddenly red? Who had this idea and for what reason? Greetings 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.33 (talk • contribs) .

See Pathoschild's comment here. Chick Bowen 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh thank you. Do I understand Pathoschild's lines correct? He has created a new category/template (As far as I know MutterErde was banned in September 2005 not in May 2006 - by Jimbo himself, nobody else) but this might involve problems with his new creation and so he has deleted the whole site? Reality bites? Seems very funny to me:-) .Greetings 10:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.33 (talk • contribs) .

The subcategorisation by date is new, but the template is not. The user page was deleted because the same template was placed on both userpages, which placed both User:MutterErde and User_talk:MutterErde in the category. Most of the blocks predating May 2006 are correctly categorised to Category:Wikipedia:Indefinitely blocked users/Prior or during May 2006. A few pages, such as this one, were protected and could not be edited by the bot. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet confirmed but not blocked?

As directed by Essjay, I am bringing this incident here. This request for user check was confirmed. But no action was taken and it is now closed. Prin continues to upload photos violating copyrights - see Prin log, Benzee log and Jath16 log. Anwar 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

All three users indefinitely blocked, and their uploads speedy deleted. Ral315 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

One of his old puppets User:Jathu is still unblocked. Anwar 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The block log lists an indefinite block performed by Jayjg on April 23, which is confirmed by the IP block list. He's quite blocked. Chick Bowen 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, there was no sp cat tag on his user page. So I was unsure. Now I have tagged the user page of all his puppets. Anwar 22:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The return of Robsteadman?

Many admins will remember Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his dramatic exit — talking about the "christian cabal", wanting his user page deleted (which I did), then claiming that edits made from his account weren't from him, getting completely hysterical at Deskana's RfA, using sockpuppets, and finally getting himself blocked indefinitely. Someone has alerted me to the existence of Robertsteadman (talk · contribs). As can be seen from the histories of Lady Manners School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Bakewell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there is some overlap with the contributions of Robsteadman. At a first glance, the contributions look inoffensive. But, if it is the same user, then there's a problem with a blocked/banned user coming back under a new identity. And if it isn't, then shouldn't there be a username block? AnnH ♫ 01:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been direct and simply asked the user if they are Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and if they're not exactly how they decided on that name. See User talk:Robertsteadman. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 10:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Robertsteadman (talk · contribs) basically refused to answer the question. What is to be done, then? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, that answer seems to confirm that it is Rob Steadman the indefinitely banned user. I'm willing to be the bad guy and block the account as a suspected sockpuppet of an indefbanned user. Innocuous edits aside, if it is Robsteadman he exhausted at least my personal patience in that last episode. I don't know about the community's patience. Syrthiss 18:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What has surprised me is that he's not totally flown off the handle like he normally did with intereactions with me. I don't oppose a block. I can't imagine anyone would complain. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 20:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At risk of pointing out the obvious, maybe it's not the Rob Steadman you knew. Perhaps more importantly, does it really matter? If a habitually disruptive person makes a new account after being banned, that account will get banned eventually on its own merits, regardless of whether it's ever linked to a previous account. But if, say, Jason Gatrich decided to come back and be a model citizen, we'd never even think to do a Checkuser. This suggests that indefinite bans are a policy error. Al 22:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You may well be right. But it is a policy and as such needs to be upheld and be seen to be upheld. Is there no way back from being banned? Apologies? Commitment to changed behaviour? whatever ? If so then it should be offered to Rob/Robert. Frelke 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things are policy, yet are often ignored. Perhaps this case is a good candidate. Al 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But who decides ? Frelke 06:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the previous incident for anyone like me who needed to refresh their memory on the details [50]. The only strange thing that happened during that time that I didn't report is that I was e-mailed by User:Vhjh (a banned Rob sock) who claimed to be a student in Rob's A'level music class. She also said that she had e-mailed Jayjg as well but I never saw any response to this so I don't know if that's true. Is an automatic ban necessary as the account seems to have been active for a few weeks without problems? If anything this user has been pretty busy in article space which is always good. If Rob's previous account had a stupidly simple password it is possible it was hacked. Even I as an ex system manager only realised a few weeks ago how easy it would be to guess my password from my user page details and rapidly changed it. The telling point will be if the socks or vandal comments were made from his home IP - the check user could confirm this. If so then there is no doubt it was him that did it - but if it was all done from the shared IP (or unrelated IP's) then it is less clear and maybe AGF could be invoked? Perhaps putting the account on probation would be another way of giving them a chance but letting them know that any misbehaving and they're out? Just my 2 penn'th (this all assumes it's too much of a coincidence that two Rob Steadman's live in Matlock). Sophia 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a bit of discussion on this at my talk page at the moment. I personally think this account is more likely to be an imposter, but could be from someone who knows Rob or has encountered him on the internet. It could, for example be User:Bakewell Tart. My view is that Rob would not come back under his user name. Rob asked for his account to be deleted, and I explained to him that his user page could be deleted, and also his talk page (if nobody objected), but his contributions would remain. That was on 3 April. On 20 April, the Robsteadman account edited the Robert Steadman article,[51] which Rob had always insisted he had never edited. (Three proven sockpuppets of his — User:Vhjh, User:Robeaston99, and User:Yummy mummy — have edited it, and also several British IPs.) On 23 April, the Robsteadman account made what I consider to be a very typical edit, rejoicing in the horrible events that led to the departure of Gator1 and KHM03.[52] He then claimed that he had not made those two edits, and that his account had been hacked.

My guess is that he thought his account had been deleted — it seems that he failed to understand that there is no such thing as account deletion — and that if he made an edit from his computer it would therefore register as an anonymous edit. He then came back the next day, got completely hysterical, said his account had been used by vandals, accused me of breaking my promise to delete his account (a promise I had never made), and trolled extremely abusively on Deskana's RfA (and also on his own talk page, though those edits have been deleted). He was blocked indefinitely, and his talk page protected. He sent e-mails to various people (including me), threatening legal action.

Regarding the "hacking" of his account, it had been suggested that since the account was deleted, someone else might have recreated it. That's not possible, since accounts can't be deleted. The only way someone other than Rob could have made those edits would be through getting hold of his password, or from the computer where he had edited before "leaving", if he had not logged out. The existence of the Yummy mummy sockpuppet (created on 21 April) suggests that Rob had logged out before the spiteful "good-riddance-to-KHM03" comment was made on 23 April, but after the edit to Robert Steadman. Yummy mummy edited only on 21 and 24 April. The "good-riddance-to-KHM03" post was made on 23 April.[53] However, that was a Sunday, and it was early in the morning, so it seems likely that the edit was not made from his school IP, and therefore doesn't prove that he hadn't logged out from all the computers he had access to. The timing of the Yummy mummy edits suggests they might have been made from work.

Regarding the account User:Robertsteadman, an RFCU has been made. If I am correct in thinking that Rob made those two edits on 20 and 23 April, thinking that they wouldn't appear under his name because his account had been deleted, it is then most unlikely that he would create a new account with the name Robertsteadman. In my view, it's far more likely to be someone targetting Rob. While his answer to Deskana was far from being cooperative, he didn't splutter that Deskana's question was OUTRAGEOUS, which is what Rob would typically have done. If it is Rob (most unlikely, in my view), then for the block of the new account to be lifted, there would have to be some discussion from admins, particularly the admin who blocked him. There would also have to be some kind of undertaking from Rob himself that he would stop edit warring and making personal attacks. If it is an imposter account (much more likely), then the indefinite block is perfectly appropriate. And if it's an innocent new user who just happened to chose that name, and just happened to edit articles that Rob had edited (most unlikely), I think he should be unblocked so that he can request a name change. However, his refusal to answer Deskana's question reduces the likelihood that it's an innocent newbie and that the whole thing is just an amazing coincidence. AnnH ♫ 09:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed as Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per CheckUser: [54]. Frankly, I'd be willing to AGF and let him continue with productive edits but I'm not someone who was subjected to his behavior before. At the moment I am the blocking admin for Robertsteadman, and I give my permission if people wish to give this incarnation of Rob one more chance. Syrthiss 12:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Would there be conditions and what would they be? Frelke 12:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My own conditions would be (1) low tolerance for disruptive behavior similar to before and (2) cut it out with the sockpuppeting. Since those are rules of conduct that everyone should be abiding by, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch. Syrthiss 13:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to support that, with the common "three admin" proviso - if three admins agree his actions constitute a problem worthy of blocking (if he becomes a disruptive rather than productive element and is not responsive to attempts to discuss / modify his behavior), block. It can be brought here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Would he have to confirm acceptance of these terms which I think might be difficult (I don't know though) or would it just be a case of popping a message on his talk page to that effect? Frelke 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like acceptance of the terms if this is what we've agreed to. I support KC's 3 admin proviso. I'm also willing to be the emailer / talkpager to present them...but again, if any of the people who were subject to harassment by him earlier have a problem with letting him contribute I'll accede to that. I'd rather not see good members of the community feel disenfranchised. Syrthiss 13:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Note - Per an email conversation with Robert, he has accepted the conditions above and has been unblocked by me. I will agree to mentor him if he requests it, but otherwise will continue to be an outside observer. Conditions are recorded at User:Syrthiss/Robertsteadman. Syrthiss 18:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User Arniep not following policy

I was notified that I was named in an "advertising scam" but the notice didn't come from the accuser user "Arniep" it came from another user who was also named in the supposed scam. I'm not on here much and don't want to get messed up in a whole political mess. But I don't think it's right that some like this Arniep should go around making up his one rules and making false accusations without even confronting the people he attacks before hand. Icemountain2 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This goes back a month or so to the Rikki Lee Travolta debacle. I will explain on his talk page. Thatcher131 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A look at IceMountain's contributions Special:Contributions/Icemountain2 shows he was just another sockpuppet of the scam to add misleading info about Rikki Lee Travolta to Wikipedia, see removed discussion on Talk:Weezer [55]. Arniep 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Move along, nothing to see here. Mackensen (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been part of a huge scam by University of Chicago student filmmakers to hype a film they are making, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime Fiction and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_being_used_to_hype_a_student_film. Arniep 02:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:24.163.205.147 edits to Brit Hume

User:24.163.205.147 keeps inserting unsourced, POV, and non-notable material regarding supposed interaction between Brit Hume and someone named Todd Ouellette while refusing to respond to communications left both on the article's [56] and his user talk page[57] regarding the material. The material he inserts in the article has also included an unsupported (and false, I might add) accusation against me specifically [58] and other "wikipedia members" who he claims "have repeatedly censored this entry in an effort to protect Brit Hume's reputation"[59]. I believe his actions are in violation of WP:AGF and possibly other policies. I don't feel I have any other recourse other than to request he be banned from editing this article for a time. Lawyer2b 20:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:24.163.205.147 has violated WP:3RR with the following edits: [60], [61], [62], and finally [63]. I will add this violation to the banning request. I wish he/she would simply engage in a rational discussion regarding the material he wants to include in the article. Can we get a little administrative assistance here? Lawyer2b 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ndru01 evading 3RR block again

The edit war continues at Gnosticism in modern times, with User:Ndru01 using another previously-created sockpuppet, User:Moonlight serenade to evade a week-long block Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ndru01. Please block User:Moonlight serenade permanently as a sockpuppet, and I would suggest also User:Abba13133131 and variations beginning with 'Abba' (there was one similar one previously created). -- originally posted 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC) --Cedders^tk 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• As expected, has now used both the above socks to link to article deleted by 2 AfD votes and many speedies, precisely the behaviour before the block. --Cedders^tk 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism/hacking of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Large/Licencing

Laura S alerted me to this page. It seems to have been vandalised in a very strange way - all I see when I go there is a massive black space that covers the whole page (even the title), and some coloured text saying "HacKeD By ~ s4m3k ~". The strange bit is that the wikicode looks fine, and there are no vandalistic edits in the history. This is the last good version (an anon reverting a redirect), and the two edits after that were by good-faith users (I can't see exactly what they did because the black space that appears on both edits even covers the diff).

I really don't know how to fix this - I could revert back to the last non-hacked version, but in doing so two presumably good-faith edits would be lost. Anyone got a better idea? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess is some obscure transcluded template got hacked. I believe I'm on the record saying these sorts of transclusions are a bad idea--for this very reason. I'll see what I can find. Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Found it: Template:User-BSD. S4m3k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did something to it. I've blocked him indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast. I deleted his userpage and his edit to the talk page of that template, which were the same thing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Reminded me of the "gift" we got from Willy on Wheels Christmas before last. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we have semi-protection at Dia Mirza?

An anon coming from various dynamic IPs (all starting with 219.64.) is way over 3RR in the article about Dia Mirza, a Bollywood actress. He (or she) doesn't want the filmography in a table, for some reason, and insists on including a list of products in whose advertisements the actress has appeared. This strikes me as using Wikipedia for advertising (and it's becoming a problem all across the Bollywood articles -- I think some publicist has discovered us). While it would take a lot of time to do checkuser on all the anons to do a 3RR complaint, semi-protection would either solve the problem, or force the user to register. Zora 23:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In general, these requests should go to WP:RFPP. Joe 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk pages

I would like to request clarification and feedback. A user (User:Locke Cole) apparently will be banned soon or plans to leave Wikipedia at some point. I don't believe I have ever encountered him before this matter. He has repeatedly requested his talk page be speedily deleted, citing m:Right to vanish as justification. However, it has been restored each time (twice by me, after discussing it above), since it appears to fall outside deletion policy. While I agree that user pages may be deleted at any time, I feel that user talk pages should not be deleted, and this is what I recall from previous discussions as well. In particular, the talk page is one in which others have had the majority of edits. Not only is it inappropriate, I feel, for a user to be able to control deletion in this manner, it removes those edits from the contribution history of others. I think it is important to keep these in the history; they may be relevant for RFA or RFAR (for those users), for instance. Furthermore, I think it's important to retain the history of comments to that user as well, especially since Arbitration Committee bans are not indefinite and users can come back from wikibreaks.

I don't believe m:Right to vanish applies. In the first place, I don't believe it is policy, though I have requested clarification there. In the second, it only applies for editors who have left a project; it is inappropriate for those continuing to edit to use it as justification. In the third place, it is intended for the removal of personal information. In the fourth, it applies to user and talk subpages, not the talk page itself (although Locke Cole has since reworded the statement). In the fifth place, I don't believe it grants users the right to have talk pages deleted, but suggests it as an option.

Deletion of the page clearly falls outside Wikipedia's deletion policy. It does not satisfy any criterion for speedy deletion. In particular, criterion U1 explicitly covers subpages, and G7 is for pages of which the requester is the primary or sole author. Clearly, for a talk page, this is not the case.

Locke took issue with my second undeletion. I considered the discussion at WP:AN/I#Locke Cole's userpage sufficient justification (the beginning is a bit conflated by discussions of user page deletion), but Locke believes I am wheel warring. It is not my intention to wheel war, so I'll reopen the discussion. For now, I have protected Locke's talk page to prevent him from re-adding the {{db|m:Right to vanish}} template to his talk page and a random administrator wandering in, unaware of the deletion history or this discussion, re-deleting the talk page without realizing that others have been discussing it or feel it's inappropriate. If someone reads this discussion and decides that deletion is appropriate, he may remove the protection and re-delete the page. I'd ask that anyone doing so mention it here. I don't intend to further delete or un-delete the page, but feel this is an important policy matter and am interested in what others think. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I twice removed the speedy tag from Locke's talk page, and I agree with what Knowledge Seeker has said on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Locke Cole's user and user talk page once because I had read m:Right to vanish in Locke Cole's version, which is still there. I was unaware of the previous deletions (there is an extension that gives a "page log" button, right? I need to get that) so I was the "random admin wandering in". I should probably not have deleted the talk page, especially since Locke Cole hasn't vanished. I think we should always delete user pages (not only subpages) at the request of the owner, unless they contain {{indefblockeduser}} or similar (WP:CSD#U1 is only about subpages, but Wikipedia:User page allows {{db-owner}} deletion of userpages). Thinking about it, I agree with keeping the User talk page undeleted (possibly mostly blanked, but keeping the history accessible to non-admins) at least for another couple of months. I apologize for the deletion. Kusma (討論) 23:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I unprotected the talk page so that Locke Cole can comment on these issues there if he choses. He cannot comment here because he is currently blocked. --CBDunkerson 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The concept behind 'right to vanish' is that someone should be able to remove all evidence of their participation in the project... change their username, adjust past signatures, and yes... delete all the pages in their userspace. If the user talk page must be retained (which certainly has not been the case in prior 'right to vanish' situations) then the person obviously cannot truly 'vanish'. There is a publically available record of many of their communications with other users. There is also just no need for this - if a 'vanished' user comes back the talk page can be undeleted. Any information needed for a RFAr can be retrieved by any admin. The record of that user's talk page (and indeed, everything they have done) still exists... it is just not available to the general public, does not show up on Google searches, et cetera. The person may then 'vanish' from the public eye... but none of the materials you suggest might be needed in the future are 'lost', we can still retrieve them at any time if need be. --CBDunkerson 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has just deleted Locke Cole's talk page, with the edit summary "I figure, let him go. Who cares? not worth fighting about". Kusma (討論) 00:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine as long as he actually stays gone. Thatcher131 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Far be it for me to argue with that, but I also agree with Thatcher. Locke has to actually leave. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In cases like these, would it make sense to indef block the account? The user could always request to have it unblocked should they ever decide to come back and no problems with missing page histories in the meantime. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In the thread above, he said that he will have the user/talk page undeleted if he ever returns. I do not see any reason to doubt he will, so I see no reason to indef block. - Liberatore(T) 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delisting a FP despite the previous successful FPC and failed delisting attempt

ed g2s (talk · contribs) has decided to delist a featured picture, despite its previous successful FPC, and his previous failed delisting attempt against it. Weigh in here (and please read my reply, which summarizes the whole thing). --BRIAN0918 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to still be a featured picture, despite what you said. Instead, ed g2s (talk · contribs) is attempting to re-run the featured picture candidate process again because he doesn't like the decision the first time, even though a pass through featured picture removal failed to get enough support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and closed the faulty nom. Please contact me if you either disagree with my decision, or the way I handled it. Thanks. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Morven: No, if you check the history, I readded the FP tag after noticing it was gone. I'm not sure what happened to the original tag. --BRIAN0918 15:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Apologies, then. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of Roitr

I am concerned that ForesterGamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a reincarnation of indefinitely banned Roitr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please compare ForesterGamp's upload log with Roitr's; many of the images have the same filenames, and both are either untagged or tagged (fraudulently) with {{GFDL-self}}, without indication of source. If others concur, I will block ForesterGamp indefinitely. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My checkuser request was denied on the grounds that Roitr's contribs are too old. Thus, it's up to you guys. Comments? Chick Bowen 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, you linked to ForesterGamp's contributions in both examples. The links for each user's upload logs are:

• Roitr
• ForesterGamp

Might be more helpful. :) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to reinforce how similar they were. . . or something. . . :) Chick Bowen 01:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Shapoompoom

User keeps reposting article on Joanne Lyscos, (at least 3 times in less than 24 hour span) and leaves threats on talk pages (i.e. "You should just face it. You'll never keep Joanne lyscos down. Her page will keep on being put up wether you like it or not so why don't you just leave it? Face, it and get over it."). User also demonstrates vandalism. Yanksox 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for disruption and vandalism. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Uses reposted "Joanne Lyscos," under username: Shaquandique. Yanksox 02:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well now, doesn't that just take the biscuit. Mackensen (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked indefinitely. On consideration, I'm extending the block of the main user to indefinite. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but user has done it again: Sharitz. Very, very, very annoying. Yanksox

I've protected the page as {{deleted page}}. That ought to be that. Chick Bowen 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet again, he is now Shaquandoofoo, and the page is now Joanne Lyskos. ॐ Priyanath 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bother. Well, I've protected that too, and blocked the user. Chick Bowen 04:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Shapoompoom, shaquandique, sharitz, shaquandoofoo. I suggest we keep a close eye on new user Shagudiga. Snottygobble 05:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So far at least Shagudiga hasn't touched Joanne L***os ;) Syrthiss 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

See Füçk (talk · contribs). Mangojuice^talk 03:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked. Ral315 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dschor (talk · contribs) evading block

I have extended Dschor's original probationary one-week block to reset starting now for evading the block and posting under an IP address. The evidence that the IP is him is this edit, and the offending edit is this one. If I have made an error, please readjust the block accordingly. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Merecat (talk · contribs)?

A new user Neutral arbiter (talk · contribs) is making his very first edits and deletes massive parts of Movement to impeach George W. Bush.[64][65] I can't help but wonder if this is not the same user that aggressively wanted to delete this information as it was still a subpage? Deletes information he claims is untrue.[66] At least could somebody explain to him that starting your edits on Wikipedia like this is not helpful and might be considered vandalism? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong about the sockpuppetry, but the numerous edits to this controversial article could be open for debate. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There may have been a false start but it seems the other edits are indeed better. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Try running a sock-check here. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if that is needed. This editor changed his editing-behaviour and even says on his userpage I am his first wikipedia friend. Not a likely action by Merecat, unless we interpret it as a clever trick by Merecat to fool us. But that sounds utterly paranoid to me, so hence my doubts. More importantly, I feel awkward filing a RCU when I am not entirely sure my suspicions are warranted. What do you think? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing from the same point of view as Merecat is hardly a crime; I would probably look similar if I has the stomach to edit that article. If the editor is not disruptive or obnoxious I would judge him/her based on the quality of the edits and respond accordingly. Thatcher131 16:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested it was a crime. The question was out of curiosity, and if you read my comments I already said it probably was not Merecat. As to similar editing. You feel that my objecting to massive deletions is POV. That is your right, others might say that making massive edits to controversial topics is not smart. Beyond that, contrary to a disruptive editor as Merecat, this one is capable of decent discourse. Thank you for your observations. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I was answering your request for comment on filing an RFCU when you are not sure. I have not checked the editors contribs at all. Thatcher131 16:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood. Thank you again. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Single-handed conclusion of an AfD by an interested party

Yesterday, a user tried to conclude a AfD as "no consensus" of an article that he created himself, probably as a pov fork. The conclusion seems contrary to the vote as well. I first thought that I was dreaming, but it really happened. The user has a very long history of disruptions, see for example his block log and talk page (Haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I would appreciate if someone can look into this issue. Best regards, gidonb 11:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the AfD worked out OK; I have warned the user in question. The Land 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Amzor (talk · contribs) and Confucius

Amzor (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for continuing to make legal threats against Wikipedia on their talk page once a 24 hour block for vandalism had been placed. They are claiming that Confucius is a copyright violation in its entirety, however have not provided any evidence of such, and a google search on the text provides only Wikipedia mirrors. There was other vandalism in addition to the copyright infringement so to be honest I think they were just trolling. Even if they have a genuine case however, they are barred from editing because they decided to be a dick over it. One to watch in case they come back under a different guise. -- Francs2000 11:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Usernames

Not sure about this. Did anybody notice this, are these names allowed? !!!! curps was a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs) !!!! Daniel Brandt was a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs) !!!! SlimVirgin was a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs) !!!! Quaque was a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs) Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They're definitely not allowed, which is why they've already been blocked :-). [67] [68][69][70]. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Missed the blocks, sorry. Anyway, better save than sorry. Thank you for the info. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. As you say, better safe than sorry: and we'd have been very sorry if these socks were later used in an attack of some kind because we'd just assumed they'd been blocked ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Spamming by User:Virtualsunil and anons

User talk:Virtualsunil and at least two anons - contribs: [71] [72] and [73] have been spamming various articles (coal, anthracite coal, leasing, power, and yearbook) with a book promotion. I blocked Virtualsunil for a short period for repeated spamming - the user then switched to anon mode and continued. I have blocked both anon accounts. Just may need more eyes aware and watching. Vsmith 15:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

LUEshi AfD (Sockpuppetry, et al)

Likely the wrong place, but the thing was a bad faith nomination by a very new user (it was his second edit) and sockpuppetry runs like the plague. Can someone block the sockpuppets and, if deemed suitable, speedy close the debate? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy kept, bad faith, GNAA clause. Will (^E_@) T 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the speedy keep, the last AfD consensus was to merge this article elsewhere, and it doesn't look like much has changed on it since then... --InShaneee 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are we assuming this nomination was bad faith? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User's second edit, and seems to know the AFD process. LUE has a disdain for Simple Plan (I myself should know, being a LUEser). The previous three nominations didn't have a delete consensus, and ILSP read them. Will (^E_@) T 07:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin - repeat revert spree

This User has been disrupting talk-page discussions with personal attacks, and has launched again a revert spree similar to one two days ago. I will try to maintain the page, but will not transcend the WP:3RR rule. Please keep an eye open. THEPROMENADER 18:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hardouin and Talk:Paris for a better understanding of the context. User:ThePromenader is using the noticeboard to solve personal disputes, which it wasn't designed for. Hardouin 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing at all personal in this - this user is repeatedly disruptive to article editing and talk page discussions and is a revert war waiting to happen - especially over these past days, deleting consensus-engendered material at his/her sole whim five times straight across nine pages. There is further discussion in progress, and it has been constantly disrupted with personal attacks throughout today by the same user - in addition to an already nine reverts across nine pages. So I report it here. Is this wrong? THEPROMENADER 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hollow are the Ori is a sock puppet for Zen-master

is clearly a sockpuppet for Zen-master (talk · contribs), who is blocked until February 6, 2007 by the Arbitration Committee (case). Hollow are the Ori came to my attention because of this edit. Use of the phrase "presumption inducing language" (google search) is unique to Zen-master, as is the notion that "race and intelligence" is a "dichotomy". Hollow are the Ori's contributions are significantly overlapping with thosse of Zen-master, including Conspiracy theory and Race and intelligence. --Rikurzhen 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User Zen-master is a friend of a friend of mine. His and others' criticisms seem to have uncovered something vast. I repeat: Hollow are those that defend, perhaps unwillingly or inadvertently, the massive paradigm of lies that is "race and intelligence". Hollow are the Ori 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that User:Hollow are the Ori is Zen-master (talk · contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. Review invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Snoutwood (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I do too. The editing is characterisitic of ZM. -Will Beback 01:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

This person is most likely a sock puppeteer and has been forcing POV and personal issues on the Actuarial Outpost article -- Avi 22:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Hellooo??? Anybody home? There's stuff still there from the 11th! Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 22:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a peek and threw in my two cents. --InShaneee 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of that page? Are the people listed there up for blocking or something? --Cyde Weys 23:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that if you're being personally attacked, you can leave a note there to have it dealt with. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sunfazer temporarily blocked for unexplained blankings

Sunfazer (talk · contribs) kept blanking the Rihanna article and has refused to explain his actions, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. I suspect his account might have been compromised. --Ixfd64 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Metroponce & Ponce2

I just saw the contributions of Ponce2 and I've blocked him as a sockpuppet of Metroponce (contributions). I'd blocked Metroponce for vandalism and the sockpuppet was being used to avoid the block. They were both making identical edits: See this edit by Metroponce, this identical edit by Ponce2, this edit by Metroponce and this edit by Ponce2 CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User page use and definition of "personal attack"

User:Grace Note and User:Sean Black appear to have a disagreement over the definition of "personal attack". The latter protected the userpage of the former to keep him from wikilinking Dave Gerard to Dracula. This seems to have to do with the treatment of school articles. Circeus 00:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gracenote wrote: I can't see how it's particularly constructive to spend hours, days and weeks burning witches -- why not just empower [[Dracula|Dave Gerard]] et al to kick out whoever they disapprove of, which with the broad interpretation of blocking policy some use is already becoming the case - it sounds like a personal attack to me, despite GN's claims that it's only "harmless fun" [74] Raul654 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note has now said I need to "grow up", that I like to "bully" others, that I have to learn that Wikipedia is "not a schoolyard", and that I need to "learn to behave properly around adults."[75] Lovely. To be frank, it's not "harmless fun" by any stretch of the imagination. I don't mind if the page is unprotected, so long as the insult is not restored.--Sean Black 00:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I find Grace Note's remark on his userpage about David Gerard pretty insulting altogether; it's not just the pipelink. IMO Grace Note is showing a poor grasp of the NPA policy when he insists that his badtempered remark is "harmless fun". Note that Sean Black isn't proposing blocking GN or anything like that: Sean removed the attack on DG from GN's userpage several times, and only protected when Grace Note kept putting it back. Sean Black's actions here seem to me moderate and reasonable. Grace Note's ageist comments about Sean here are rude and unwarranted. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

I've deleted the link to Dracula and restored GN's blanking of his talk page, which seems to be his preference, but which Cuivienen kept undoing, so hopefully there won't be any further escalation. Cups of tea all round, I think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean has a personal problem with me and is picking a fight. Dave Gerard has a sense of humour and doubtless he's well aware of how he's portrayed on a certain website that may not mention its name. He's a goff type and he probably would consider it a huge compliment to be compared with big Vlad ;-) If he feels I've personally attacked him, he's welcome to write me on my talkpage or at my email address and I'll remove it without further comment. What I will not do is be bullied by people who will jump on the smallest nonissue to attack their enemies, even if their mates pile on. Why Sean is even reading my userpage, given our relationship, is beside me: it would be assuming bad faith to say that he does it in the hope of finding something he doesn't like, but I do advise him to change his reading habits if his constitution cannot take a bit of harmless teasing of someone else. Lord knows how he'll be if I ever compare him with a fictional character. What his friends ought to be doing is admonishing him not to cause conflicts with other users over things that are a/ none of his business and b/ trivial, and in particular, admonishing him not to misuse his admin powers in connection with those conflicts. -- GN.

Nonsense. I don't have a "personal problem" with you; I have a problem with those who edit Wikipedia solely to cause trouble and disrupt it's functions; in other words internet trolls. I would have done the samething on any other userpage. For what it's worth, I stumbled upon your userpage as I was reading through User talk:Incorrect. Also, I could care less what you think of me, I don't value your opinions in any way.

Really, though, I have a question. Have you ever considered not being a dick? You seem to relish it, ranting about admin abuse and insulting me rather than taking the reasonable, common sense position and just accepting it? But no, of course not. Instead you deliberately inflamed it, turned it into a full fledged "dispute". All I want from you is for you to stop deliberately disrupting Wikipedia. If you do that, then the problem is settled and we never have to interact again, which would be a perfectly pleasing development for me.--Sean Black 06:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully support Sean's actions here, but would like to add that if Grace Note wants to blank his talk page, it's only hassling him to keep reverting him. Unless there's a good reasons for posts to remain in place (administrators' posts during a block, for example), it just adds unnecessarily to the ill feeling to revert someone who removes unwelcome comments from his talk page. The posts remain in the history anyway, so in the event of needing evidence for an RfC or an RfA, the diffs are still available. And if the user has deleted the comments, we know he has seen them. AnnH ♫ 09:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Seen this? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Really, though, Grace Note could prevent all these problems by not being a troll. If he wasn't a troll, then none of this would have happened.--Sean Black

Whereas I fail to see why you, of all people, should be the one to be stroming this particular cup of tea. Everyone stand down. El_C 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure David Gerard wouldn't mind that his name is being linked to Dracula. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I don't think people like being called trolls. Some prefer the term "intentionally disruptive user" or the phrase "green-skinned bridge-dweller". Plus, someone will scream WP:NPA and possibly WP:BITE. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and WP:LIVING

Deleted post from banned user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not really sure why SV made those edits or sprotected the page, I think assuming good faith and asking her is probably the first logical step here. --InShaneee 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that another IP beginning with 71 just reverted InShanee's edit,[76] and that several 71 variants had edit warred on WP:LIVING to add content of which SlimVirgin was the third person to revert. I can't say it appears that she is the one acting inappropriately. Postdlf 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This same anon has also been edit warring in bill of attainder. Someone with more tech savvy than I have should consider how to deal with this...floating...IP? It's clearly the same person, the IP just changes with every edit. Postdlf 01:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly agree with IS and Postdif. SV's edits, on both 16 and 18 May, appear to have been altogether appropriate; in the first instance, she was incorporating Jimbo's mailing list comments, behind which a consensus appears to have developed (notwithstanding that my views apropos of living subjects are probably diametrically opposed to those of Jimbo, inasmuch as I think we should treat living subjects differently only in view of essayed legal challenges), and, in the second, she was removing an overly specific edit--the categories example given was for illustrative purposes, and discussion about the use of that category in specific ought to be undertaken at the category's talk page. Ought SV to have offered an edit summary to that effect? Yes, probably, although I've used popup revision/rollback in similar situations; anyone looking at the edit history would surely have inferred why SV reverted. Ought SV to have semi-protected the page when she was involved in the reversion and when the persistent appending of text was done neither disruptively nor destructively (I AGF here)? Maybe not; I look with disfavor upon semi-protection where disruption isn't profound, but I know there's not a consensus for my views. In short, SV did, well, nothing wrong here. It should be said that the anon is wholly correct apropos of the criminal/civil distinction, and, if the criminals cat is being used to those who've not been convicted in a criminal proceeding, he/she ought surely to explain the situation at the cat's talk page. Joe 01:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

...and the same person has been vandalizing User:BradPatrick. This looks like a rather pervasive and dedicated campaign of...something. Disruption? Vandalism? Probably. Postdlf 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The post above, and the edits to WP:LIVING, were made by User:Amorrow, who is banned from posting anywhere on this website because of very serious harassment. That's why I protected the page against him, because he tends to come back with different IP addresses, so blocking the IPs was pointless. I've deleted his post above too; it's in the history for anyone who wants to read it to make sense of this section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Is this the same one that prompted your concern about protecting policy pages? How does that IP rapid-fire changing work, and is there no way to block that? Postdlf 01:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it is part of a pool of IP numbers assigned to SBC (aren't they the ones that just renamed themselves AT&T?). Likely the user is just breaking and restarting their DSL connection and getting assigned a new IP number each time. The current one seems likely to be from a San Francisco area SBC setup. David Oberst 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I failed to think of Amorrow; in view of that, my comments w/r/to SV's rolling back without summary and SV's semi-protecting weren't accurate (although I thought her actions to have been reasonable in any event). My bad. Joe 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Joe. Regarding the proposal, Postdlf, it wasn't Morrow I had in mind. We can semi-protect against him if we have to, and he hasn't tried to edit the policies or guidelines before that I know of. We can do range blocks of his IPs, but I was worried about blocking too many people. I may try to do one now. If you suddenly hear that North America has been blocked, you'll know why. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a simple request, I perfectly see why posts from banned users can and sometimes definitely should be removed but if you do remove it in a case where there is already a discussion (such as this thread) can you please at least link to the post's diff that way people know what your talking about, otherwise you get the equivalent of a hydra with it's heads cut off. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:J.sweeton@wnri.com

This user User:J.sweeton@wnri.com have been leaving personal attacks calling wikipedia admins, the secret police and that I'll be damn if I let them do this without a fight! on the userbox debates [77] and his userpage is close to trolling. Not sure what to do. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, clearly unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 02:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This guy was trolling in a huge way. HOW many dozens of pages did he copy/paste the same text to? --InShaneee 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely one to keep a close eye on once this block expires. He doesn't seem like a good candidate to reform. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lentisco

User is setting personal attacks on my page, and is refusing to follow Wikipedian rules. Reverts tags, attacks users. Yanksox 04:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox

Why is a shamelessly ignorant 18 year old american editing pages on australian history?. He is out of control. Let him edit the Paula Abdulla pages -but not Australian historyLentisco 04:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My point proven. Yanksox 04:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him not to be so incivil...this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. Even us ignorant american-ers. --InShaneee 04:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

...Aaaaand blocked for 24 hours for reverting a 'notability' tag from William Sams a whopping 8 times today. --InShaneee 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Being blocked for reasons that I dispute

User:Cyde recently blocked me for "Personal attacks and disruption". You can read it here User_talk:Mboverload#Blocked.

I dispute that jokingly saying that someone doesn't like women because he is trying to delete a userbox with a picture of breasts in it is a personal attack at all. I also disagree with his assessment of me calling someone a vandal.

In addition, I am in a content dispute over userboxes with Cyde. I used to support his efforts to get rid of junk boxes but then I saw that trying to delete 30 at once was a mistake.

From reading the blocking policy I see no provision for blocking someone for making one personal attack. I will even admit that I have made personal comments in the past, though they hardly rise above a snide comment in response to one of theirs. Although I don't know where to point to, I believe that an important part of the rules when it comes to blocking is to give fair warning and ask that behavior that does not immediately threaten Wikipedia to stop. People can have 4 rounds of vandalism with as many expletives as they want and I'm not allowed leeway on this?

I do not ask that any action be taken against Cyde. All I ask is that this be reviewed. --mboverload@ 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, each of the instances Cyde adduces is relatively mild; even taken together, I can't imagine that they were particularly disruptive, and I probably wouldn't have interpreted them as contravening the letter or spirit of WP:NPA. Inasmuch as the block is only for three hours, though, I think you'd do well simply to wait it out; even if your comments weren't personal attacks, they surely didn't foster the collegial spirit necessary for the project, and you should likely consider how better to phrase things in the future. Joe 05:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. However, I don't really like having a notice about me being blocked in my talk archives. Not cool. =( --mboverload@ 05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tend to agree that the block was not necessary, but I do feel your comments were quite inappropriate and counterproductive. As it was only a three-hour block, however, I have to think this merely had the intention of making clear that your behavior was unacceptable, which I think it succeeded in. Whether or not that is an appropriate use for a block is questionable, but in the end rather trivial. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mboverload had a general ongoing pattern of incivility, disruptiveness, and unproductiveness on WP:TFD and something needed to be done to shock him out of the negative pattern. Fellow administrators, examine these links: one two. --Cyde↔Weys 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some more unproductive comments (I didn't even see these before): "This isn't the 700 Club. We aren't here to stupid-proof Wikipedia.", "Do you hate blind people or something?" User needs an attitude adjustment. --Cyde↔Weys 05:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I go right to the point. I don't sugar-coat stuff. I like my hard-hitting responses with a pinch of humor to a dull process. If you disagree with my style, which you seem to not get over the internet, you are more than welcome to send me a message about my civility. --mboverload@ 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mboverload, you could certainly do more to edit harmoniously. Cyde, your digging for additional reasons to justify the block after the fact only serves to show that it wasn't particularly justified. The diffs you provided were inappropriate edits certainly, but why not talk to the editor about it before reaching for that block button? Friday (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the diffs do seem marginally incivil, in that they pose allegations of other editors' beliefs as rhetorical questions...but where the speed-limit is 55, and the average speed is 65, you don't ticket someone for travelling 58. Judging only from the evidence presented here, this user is not unusually or unacceptably incivil, and should not have been blocked. "Shocking [someone] out of [their] negative pattern" does not impress me as a well-defined reason for a block.Timothy Usher 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(conflict with the eminent Fri) While I'd agree that these aren't helpful comments, I'm certainly not seeing enough to warrent a block. There's nothing that looks like a warning on User talk:Mboverload, either. I'm also dead sick of hearing "no harm done" when a little three hour block is dropped on someone outside policy probity. Using adminstrative powers as a slap-stick doesn't appear on the blocking policy page that I see.
brenneman^{L} 06:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of Friday, Timothy Usher and Aaron. -- DS1953 ^talk 13:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with these guys. Cyde, please take note, there seems to be at least some consensus that you were a little too reckless with the block trigger. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This will probably get me another "high horse" or "holier than thou" tally in my entry in Cyde's personal book, (apparently I've got quite the collection already) but I do think Cyde has an unfortunate tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. I think a warning would have been appropriate in this case before a block and find myself in agreement with Friday, Timothy Usher and Aaron in this case. That's not to say that Mboverload shouldn't consider changing approach, and full marks for doing so as indicated below. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: After seeing the responses I have gotten over my comments I will change how I behave. I didn't realize it was that big of a problem. I am used to message boards where people know that half the stuff you say about them is sarcasm and stupid fun. I now realize that Wikipedians do not assume "playful" banter (I know some of my comments push the edge of it) when reading comments. I am a playful person by nature but I get carried away when it comes to people who do not understand what I'm doing. I know that asking why someone hates deaf people is pretty crude when you say it out of the blue, but it was all in good fun and humor about deleting a spoken-article template. I regret any effects my actions may of had. As you can see in my talk page, I can be extremely understanding and helpful.

I'm still unhappy with having a block on my record and a message on my archives but I'm not going to push it. As brenneman said, using administrative powers outside of their guidelines, however how "small" it may be, is not something to be taken lightly. Perhaps what I'm really upset about is that I would be blocked. I have done my best to better Wikipedia through anti-vandalism and hopelessly mundane spellchecking that I wouldn't wish on my ex. I'm not asking for smypathy, it's just that the mental effect of this is much greater than any record in a database. I will continue helping Wikipedia and I will change how I comment, but I still leave scarred.--mboverload@ 07:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, good. Such a change in not only advisable but necessary in the wiki world. And always remember to use smileys liberally when you are making a joke, especially when the recepient is one who you don't know very well. I too come from the world of messageboards and have suffered here because of the habit of making tongue-in-cheek comments without emoticons. Tintin (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you have my empathy when it comes to having really stupid shit in your block log :-P Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If the blocking powers when properly used aren't a "slap stick", I don't know what they are. Looking at mboverload's recent edits, they seem to be littered with casually offensive personal attacks. "And I find your objection offensive. This isn't the 700 Club. We aren't here to stupid-proof Wikipedia." [78] , "Keep Do you hate blind people or something? What's going on?" [79]. "Keep the only vandalism I see is you sticking that deletion template in it." [80]. "Keep Conrad hates women!"/"Keep Conrad hates boobies!" [81]. " This seemingly endless stream of vituperation is quite unacceptable. The block was, if anything, rather shorter than was merited. As a matter of urgency, mboverload must change his behavior. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That comment would mean a heck of a lot more to me, coming from someone else. If you really felt that way Tony, you'd be blocking yourself fairly regularly. Somewhere there's a moral to this story. Friday (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is very, very naughty, and completely unjustified. Please be careful who you launch into attacks on. And "That comment would mean a heck of a lot more to me, coming from someone else"? Really, that is too much. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, having reviewed mboverload's recent edits, a longer block than that given him by Cyde was in order. If Cyde's guilty of anything in this mess, it's being too lenient. FeloniousMonk 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm more of the opinion that for starters, a warning would have been the nice thing to do - I can't find one. As has been said before, we regularily assume more good faith in clear vandals. -- grm_wnr Esc 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you do, I sure as hell don't! --Cyde↔Weys 15:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't hurt to warn first, in cases like this. Worth a thought, perhaps, Cyde? Maybe erring on the side of more civility is apprropriate while taking someone to task for incivility? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF is policy. Please abide by it. Kusma (討論) 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. In cases of clear vandalism a warning is merely mindless pro forma that serves no practical purpose. Discretion/common sense in such situations is the byword, not robotic adherence to policy. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And what we're talking about here is in no way clear vandalism, so that's quite beside the point. P.S. Yeah, I was quite foolish to bring that up in the first place, now that I read that again. Sorry. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can say that I have noticed Cyde's blocking in the past. Cyde seems to have no inclination to warn even good faith editors who make mistakes. I would ask Cyde to consider leaving messages on talk pages warning people about inappropriate behavior and blocking only after warnings go unheeded, rather than just blocking on the spot every time he sees misbehavior. The latter action is appropriate for vandal-only accounts or clear sockpuppets of banned users, but is probably inappropriate (no matter how short) for anyone with any good faith edits on their account. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And a warning for vandalism is not mindless pro forma. In many cases, it stops the vandalism just as a block does, and has less bad side effects (other users affected etc.) Kusma (討論) 17:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He blocked me for two edits (one of which he admits wasn't really important). He dug those edits up LATER in an attempt to justify his actions. --mboverload@ 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've also noticed Lethe's unblocking in the past. He doesn't seem to have an inclination to discuss with fellow admins. --Cyde↔Weys 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that you're unwilling to consider my suggestion? -lethe ^{talk +} 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If only we could develop some sort of amazing lethe-cyde crossbreed. But with a tasty marshmallow coating, and perhaps cutting off the third head early... --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has to buy me dinner first, before I'll consider breeding with him. :-) -lethe ^{talk +} 16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll buy dinner if you buy wine and dessert. --Cyde↔Weys 16:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion, Cyde: Try to listen to and understand criticism without needing to dish it back out to the person giving it to you. Snoutwood (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So Cyde, there's been no indication that you've any intention of taking under advisement the suggestions of me, Friday, Timothy Usher, Brenneman, DS1953, Lar, GTBacchus, and Kusma, who've all expressed the opinion that blocking without warning is not a good policy. Is that so? Will you consider being a little more careful when blocking good-faith editors? -lethe ^{talk +} 17:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde was working well within policy and within his administrative discretion and blocked an editor for egregious personal attacks. That you yourself choose this opportunity to launch personal attacks on the blocking administrator does not reflect well on you. --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend for anything I said to be construed as a personal attack against Cyde. I merely wish for him to acknowledge the fact that at least 9 people have weighed in on the issue saying that Cyde was too quick, and that he will consider their opinions. If it seemed like a personal attack, I apologize. In the mean time, I eagerly await some comment from Cyde, even if it is to say "Tony is right and the 9 of you are wrong, I will continue to block on sight." Tony, I think you're being a bit combative. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a little. I'm seeing what appear to me to be extremely poorly grounded criticism of Cyde, based on the complaints of a user who was correctly blocked for a sequence of personal attacks. I'd like to see some acknowledgement that Cyde does not merit this criticism but should be thanked for doing his job. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me say this again: He blocked me for those two edits and those two edits only. He dug those up later to try and justify his behavior. To say that him going outside of the rules is doing is job...I just can't comprehend how you would take that position. WP:BLOCK has NO provision in it that justifies his his block at all. Perhaps you should read it again? How are users expected to follow the rules when administrators do not? --mboverload@ 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Lethe et al. in their request that Clyde exercise more restraint before blocking, particularly by giving warnings first. A block is a last resort, not a first. Frankly, the fact that Tony Sidaway so strongly supports Clyde only convinces me further that Clyde is in the wrong. Admins need to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL, at least as much as non-admins do. Al 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be dismayed to find that most editors consider that I'm usually right on these matters. And your antagonism towards me doesn't give you carte blanche to engage in veiled personal attacks. Take care. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Most" editors, "usually" right... , anyone? But you're right about those "veiled" personal attacks, they're uncalled for and not helping anyone. But neither do "veiled" threaths like "take care", Tony. Chill out, and that goes for all of you. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing constant complaints that contributors aren't fully warned or didn't deserve this or that block from people who aren't familiar with what's going on and often don't seem to take the time to find out. How about we assume some good faith in the direction of admins every once in a while? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And now it's time for a nice cup of tea and a sit down. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 19:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't drink the tea! It's poison! Soylent Tea is People! It's a trap! More pop-culture references! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG!!! BANNZORZ! Avillia has just suggested that Katefan is a murderer! Someone block him without warning, quick! =) --mboverload@ 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(Spam?) at Nigeria and many, many reverts

I am not sure what is going here - there are two users past 3RR already and what appears to be sockpuppets fighting to keep two links with the domain name mooo.com or something like that. Perhaps someone knows what is going on here.... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 07:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this edit war has subsided- it has been more than six hours.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This user, User:Amy333, is back adding the links again. User:Madriya_Hetrigona, most certainly a sockpuppet of Amy333, has also been adding the links. I have warned Amy333 about the relevant policies on External links, 3RR, and sockpuppets, and gave an indefinite block to User:Madriya_Hetrigona. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another sock, User:Magrich. Also an indefinite block. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I also tried to look at the site to really consider its merits. But, the site is down and I only get "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at ..." All the more reason not to include the links. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The pictures site wasn't too bad, but it was added by the site creator. The "news" site just made my eyes bleed. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - well done :). Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user, 84.90.120.199, with new IP

Old IP: 84.90.120.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

New IP: 84.90.120.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Same spam added as the old IP with the new IP to the same articles, Portugal and Algarve. IPs are both in the same class C subnet. -- Kevin Breitenstein 09:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. His targets are on my watchlist, so I'll catch him wherever he pops up. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Whitehopeman

Whitehopeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account with publicized password, changed password, needs blocking altogether. Cheers! Dr Zak 11:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by JoanneB I believe. Syrthiss 12:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is after the fact, but as was pointed out to me earlier, once you've changed the password to a public account, it no longer needs blocking because the original owner no longer has access to that account. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Two problems with that - (1) unless the contact email is changed, the original user could request a password reset and re-compromise the account and (2) its still a shared account, since the person who changed the password could return to it and use it as a sock account at some time in the future (not that I think they would). Just best security practice to lock it down. Syrthiss 14:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Woops, an addendum: reset the password and change the email address. :-) Nothing wrong with an indef block, it's just that resetting the password and changing the email address can be done by any user without requiring cabal admin intervention. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I generally change the password and block indefinitely. Chick Bowen 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

User:KimJongIL 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 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good block. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Moves reverted. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least he was mildly clever with the destination names ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Curps, User:LIJK appears to be the same vandal. I've blocked. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 16:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also blocked KJIL or some permutation of that, who vandalized here. Syrthiss 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And -k -J - IL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now. Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Alan S. Chartock

I'm being accused of abuseing my admin powers on this article. Could someone cheack to confirm I'm not in this case.Geni 18:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As an non-partisan party, I side with your comment of "This isn't Wikiquote". I can see if the section was written in an encyclopedic manner using quotes to illustrate a point, but I feel those quotes would find a better home at Wikiquote with a link to them in the article. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the literal charge, a check of your logs seems to indicate that you haven't used any admin privileges with respect to this article, let alone abused them. However, User:Fungible has abused his editing privileges, and I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. --Michael Snow 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Crestville

I have just blocked Crestville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for personal attacks against OneSixOne (talk · contribs). Since then, I have had time to look more closely at the rest of his contributions and have come accross the following in the latest 100 of his edits:

• [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]

The list goes on, see his contributions. I've left a message on his talk page, explaining the block (for 24 hours) and given him a serious warning about the future. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, for example if anything should be done now, or what should be done if he continues to make personal attacks. — FireFox (U T C) 19:13, 19 May '06

He seems to do good work but he's got a foul mouth. I've put his talk page and that of onesixone on my watchlist. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

I have been alerted in the past that I have breached Copyright. I am not knowledgeable in this area and need help. I suspect others do too. Can anyone explain to me clearly as to when an article or part of it violates this rule, giving examples. Thank you very much. Kind regards. Wallie 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For text, it's really very simple--all text should be original. There are certain circumstances in which public domain text can be incorporated, but only if it's explicitly and unquestionably in the public domain, which generally means it was published (not written) before 1923 and its source is stated (we generally take a "better-safe-than-sorry" line on text that might or might not be PD, so it's best to steer clear of it altogether). But for all intents and purposes, you should only put text into Wikipedia if you wrote it yourself. Images are far more complicated, but you referred to articles, not images. Chick Bowen 23:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chick. You are the only one who replied. I suspected I may not get many replies, as this is a difficult and complicated subject. However, some admins are quick to mention that someone has breached Copyright, but I am unsure if they are just guessing. Wallie 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Until you know how to drive, don't drive. Until you understand the following don't add anything you didn't create yourself and don't delete what others have added under the claim of copyvio (it is actually quite complicated):

• Wikipedia copyrights
• Public domain
• Fair use
• Reusing Wikipedia content
• Copyright violations WAS 4.250 12:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this, WAS. Doesn't this contravene "Be Bold"? Wallie 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:DirtyDyke

Username, vandalism, etc. Funny but still you know. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. --Cyde↔Weys 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with User:SirIsaacBrock

Brock has committed numerous violations of copyright by copying images and text from world book and other encyclopedias, and has even claimed it as his own work. I've put a copyright violation notice on .38 Calibre, which was roughly 90% passages copied from other encyclopedias, but he has reverted away from it repeatedly.

Violating images:

• Image:Revolver.JPG
• Image:Impact.JPG
• Image:Cartridge.JPG

(all taken from World Book, and listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 May 19/Images)

Query about the images:

• [91]

Brock responds claiming he drew it:

• [92]

Violating article: [93] Repeated reverts: [94] [95] Fuller explanation of violation: Talk:.38 Calibre

I need some help in case he keeps revert off the copyvio notice, and someone needs to go through the rest of his contributions because he's demonstrated through his actions that he's willing to blatantly lie about the source of materials he adds to wikipedia. Night Gyr

He's reverted it again [96], this time claiming that it's not a copyvio because he copied from more than one place. Night Gyr 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The article is well researched by me and has citations to support where I did my research. I used several sources. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Defective unblock

Hipi_Zhdripi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked and now he has been unblocked, but now he tells me that he is still blocked (i.e. can’t use his account). Could someone please do something about this, reblock and then unblock him perhaps, or give him one of those 1 second blocks, or whatever is done when an unblock doesn’t seem to have taken effect. Note that in the Ipblocklist, he still appears (except his name has an underscore), so maybe Sceptre unblocked User:Hipi Zhdripi, but User:Hipi_Zhdripi (with the underscore) is sill blocked. Could someone please fix all this. Thanks. --Telex 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to unblock, if it dosen't work I'll need Hipi Zhdripi's IP address. (Which can be e-mailed to me) Prodego ^talk 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think you've done the trick. He no longer appears in the Ipblocklist. --Telex 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he can edit now. Thanks. --Telex 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Prodego ^talk 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway and The-thing

Well, since Tony doesn't feel up to responding to either one of the two messages I left him, I guess I'll just ask people here for thier suggestion on what happened. The-thing was tagging users userpages with indefblocked templates, which is fine. (Except for one tiny error he made, which was resolved on his talk page). I noticed later that his contributions started to disappear, Tony was deleting them saying "vandalism only edit". Which it wasn't, it was tagging a users' page as a vandalism account only. Tony's deletion log. I asked Tony about them but he didn't respond. A few minutes later, I noticed Tony had blocked The-thing saying "silly troll". I asked him about this and he was unresponsive again. A few things that need to be reversed are the blocking of The-thing and the undeletion of three of the userpages Tony deleted. The-thing wasn't even warned and still hasn't been given a warning about being blocked. Could someone intervene? DGX 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen any messages from DGX until I saw this--I ask him to please be more patient; waiting a mere twenty minutes for a response to a talk page message on Wikipedia seems a tad unrealistic.

Thething had gone through a whole bunch of userpages and placed block messages on them. His purpose on this occasion was clearly vandalism. See apology below.

Looking at his edits again I see that he has done useful ones in the past. I'll reduce the block to twenty-four hours. It was wrong to block a valuable editor indefinitely, even over serious vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, note that The-thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked for massive user talk spamming. It wasn't even "vote recruitment" or anything ... it was honest-to-God spam. --Cyde↔Weys 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, that was something I just forgot to bring up. Yes, The-thing was previously blocked for massive spamming, which was deserved, but this situation is a little differant. DGX 22:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate you, AmiDaniel. Fine, disregard my trollish comment I commited prematurely! You will loathe the day! Anyway, looking at the contribs, the guy seems to be editing in good faith. The first block was welcoming new users en-masse, this was tagging things en-masse. While there is something to be said for WP:BOT and the edit timing, and the fact he appears to have been blocked/warned before, there is pretty good potentinal for reform. Indefinite thus seems pretty heavy-handed. But, then again, people have tried to indef block me... What, four times now?--Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really not something to be proud about. --Cyde↔Weys 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. The comment was a lot more relevant before I needed to quickly rewrite the comment for fear of a block for trolling. They're all out to get me, I tell ya! ALL OF YA! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There were no really useful contributions in The-thing's history, and one of the deleted pages was another mistaken "indefblockeduser". Nothing lost in blocking this user; while a comment on the user or talk page or a more detailed block log entry would have been nice, there is not much reason for anyone to intervene here. Kusma (討論) 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might have been better off assuming good faith with the indefblock messages, but I guess theres no big problem. Just wish Tony would open up a little more... DGX 23:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The-thing created a user page (with the blocked user notice) for a user who doesn't exist. See here. There's no link for special contributions at the left. AnnH ♫ 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, he did make a couple of mistakes. But User:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII was blocked indefinantly and thus a indefblock tag was proper, that itself wasn't vandalism. DGX 23:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I retract my last statement. He did make a mistake. But it was not a bad mistake just a (maybe typo) mistake, not vandalism. The name of the blocked user is User:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, not the above link. He just must have made a mistake is all. DGX 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I screwed up hugely here. When I used the block log links on the user contributions pages to check for blocks of those users after he had placed the templates. They were empty, and I wrongly assumed that the user was trolling. Since then the servers have synchronized and now I see the blocks. My apologies to The-thing, whom I have unblocked. [97]. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Atlantahawk

I have blocked this user for 24 hours for incivility [98]. Please see User_talk:Atlantahawk#Blocked for my message. I found these edits: 1, 2, 3 as well as his previous massively POV and derogatory contributions to a number of Native American topics to be completely unacceptable. I may possibly have overreacted, so I have brought this up here to get feedback. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I warned him about his earlier rudeness to Phaedriel, but then came and got rude with me...kind of stinks to block a newbie so soon, but I see no evidence in the contributions that this editor bothered to examine links I provided, or to refrain from making personal attacks.--MONGO 08:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone on IRC that looked at it said I should have blocked for longer. Hopefully he will either have cooled down or decided to go elsewhere but based on that, and the lack of any suggestion I erred, I will block him again for longer if he continues to be disruptive and incivil. ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Excessive userboxes for deletion

A Mediation Cabal case here was recently filed by Ssbohio, concerning the deletion of userboxes by Cyde Weys, Fake User, and others. The user has asked me to bring the issue to the administrator's noticeboard on his behalf. Here is a copy of the request:

Cyde & Fake User, as well as a few others are nominating many userboxes for deletion, which has led myself & others to question whether that is a good kthing to do while the community is struggling toward consensus at the same time. It skates along the ragged edge of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The nonuserbox TfD's are drowning in a sea of userboxes. Further, Cyde is going to userpages & userfying the userbox templates that have been placed there, such that without looking carefully at the code & the behavior, one could miss the removal of his userbox template(s) from his userpage entirely. He's also requested to create a bot that will automate his substituting of userpage code for userbox templates. I believe the acts by all involved are well-intentioned, and I assume good faith in their actions, but using TfD for a campaign against userboxes (in any degree) further stokes the fires. The userbox dispute needs to be resolved on a meta basis, once & for all, rather than by the death of a thousand small cuts. Fighting over userboxes one by one seems an unproductive way to go about achieving consensus.

I'd like to be able to dialogue with Cyde & Fake User toward achieving a voluntary moratorium on TfD'ing userboxes one by one. I oppose the removal of userbox templates, but, that said, I'm concerned here about the process, not the outcome. If userboxes end up being deleted by consensus, then so be it. I doubt anyone comes here for the userboxes. I just want these pointless userbox TfD battles to be held in abeyance until there is consensus on what to do with userboxes as a class. Before anything else, though, I'd like to talk with a mediator and explore what I could do to better achieve compromise with Cyde, Fake, etc.

I bring this issue here because the scope of the userbox debate is far past the power of the Mediation Cabal. From my understanding, the jist of what is being requested is that userbox deletion is kept to smaller proportions while the debate is still being underwent. The consensus of administrators is also necesary, however, to determine whether a reasonable course of action would be to slow down on the mass removals of userboxes as well. Cowman109^Talk 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the mass TfD flooding constitues WP:POINT. Not really a very good way of making it, either, just makes everyone mad. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The argument I've seen in a number of discussions around this matter is that the large number of userboxes were brought to TfD as a courtesy, as an attempt to allay the concerns of people around the implementation of Criteria for Speedy Deletion of Templates, which appears to have been at one time interpreted as meaning that several hundreds of userboxes could be speedy deleted without a formal trip to TfD. This section of the policy seems to be in flux and has moved from 'not having consensus' to 'this is policy' to 'proposed' depending upon the particular time at which you look at it. I'm not sure if this indicates that a policy change took place counter to consensus (unlikely) or that an interpretation of policy took place that was not intended by its formulators (more likely). Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ceyockey that bringing these boxes to TfD instead of speedy deleting was in fact a courtesy, and thanks to Cyde for doing so. But I would suggest that userbox deletions be postponed (in most cases) until consensus is reached. I would like to bring to everyone's attention WP:MACK, WP:UPOL, and the other proposals, which are actively moving towards consensus. Examining the continuing loss of editors frustrated over the deletion of userboxes, I strongly recommend letting these proposals come to fruition before engaging in further deletion. TheJabberwʘck 02:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I made the original informal mediation request. If the choice is TfD vs. speedy, then using TfD is a courtesy, indeed. My worry is pretty much what Jabberwock said. TfDing all these userboxes has the net effect of undercutting the attempts at consensus going on elsewhere. It's as if we were debating whether to harvest a forest for timber, with someone chopping down many trees from that forest even as we discuss what to do. There's got to be a better way than fighting the same fights hundreds of times over in TfD.--Ssbohio 02:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's policy because it's what administrators have been doing for months without any significant problems. Just because some people go in and dick around with the page doesn't change that. --Tony Sidaway 02:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What is policy? TheJabberwʘck 02:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a very philosophical question :). ~MDD4696 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, I should have emphasized the what. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 04:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"No significant problems?" Lol, yes I really did laugh out loud. Seriously, I thougt the userbox debates would be over by now. There are more important things in life to argue about than these petty userboxes. Yet every day there is something new here.--God Ω War 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So ... should I just skip Tfd altogether then and go straight for deletion? I'm not sure what you guys want. --Cyde↔Weys 10:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure that was a joke, I'll play the straight man: Excessive nomination for deletion are disruption. Excessive deletions are disruption. Having some patience is a good thing. If you can't sleep at night because of the existance of userboxes, find another hobby and give wikipedia a rest. If you want to actually work towards a solution that is stable maybe nominate a one or two a week, but work on talking to new users and drawing them into the fold. In general, work on using cogent arguments more and force (or what passes for it here) a bit less. - brenneman^{L} 11:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominating only one or two a week is totally unacceptable, as that lets the MySpacers win, because they are creating them at a rate much faster than merely one or two a week. If there was, you know, an actual moratorium on the creation of new ones then I could understand calling for a moratorium on deletions, but just calling for a moratorium on deletions is totally one-sided. --Cyde↔Weys 11:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

From my original mediation request, here's what I'd like to see happen: achieving a voluntary moratorium on TfD'ing userboxes one by one. I oppose the removal of userbox templates, but, that said, I'm concerned here about the process, not the outcome. If userboxes end up being deleted by consensus, then so be it. I doubt anyone comes here for the userboxes. I just want these pointless userbox TfD battles to be held in abeyance until there is consensus on what to do with userboxes as a class.

To me, the deletion process Cyde uses is much less important than the fact that these deletions are happening while the question of userboxes is unsettled. Going over the same arguments a bunch of times in TfD makes less sense (and seems more prone to dissention & disruption) than waiting for consensus to emerge. I'd love nothing more than never to hear another argument about userboxes, and TfD'ing them one by one doesn't seem likely to reduce the number or intensity of arguments about them, but rather to do the opposite.--Ssbohio 11:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this 'TfD as a courtesy rather than speedy deleting' argument is patently false. There is no speedy deletion criteria which remotely authorizes the deletion of Template:User sumofpi and dozens of similar userboxes involved in this latest purge. Anyone claiming that the value of pi is 'divisive and inflammatory' has gone way past the bounds of common sense... somehow I doubt we are likely to see 'vote stacking' or protests over the 'offensive nature' of pi any time soon.

Mass listing of userboxes which violate no existing policy or guideline. Userbox deletion debates routinely being closed by the nominator. Templates being deleted even over an obvious super-majority consensus to keep. Such actions are clearly disruptive and even abusive of administrator powers and need to stop. If it is really so vital that we 'cleanse' the Template: namespace of all references to the value of the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter, boxes providing a link to the person's blog, boxes indicating the person lives in the UK, et cetera then we discuss it and agree on a policy to that effect. Trampling over people and deleting regardless of the outcome of the TfD discussion isn't the way we do things and must not be tolerated. --CBDunkerson 13:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 216.29.96.198 on Kappa Kappa Gamma page

Dear Editors,
     216.29.96.198 has vandalized my entry by removing it:
- Angela (DeAngelis) Atwood, member of the Symbionese Liberation 
Army that kidnapped Patty Hearst, was a Kappa and a sorority 
sister of Jane Pauley at the University of Indiana. 

The material is truthful and verifiable by public sources, 
including the Indiana University yearbook, 
and sources on the web. It was undoubtedly because it 
is not flattering to the organization. Please warn them.

Sincerely,

Jimmyflathead@yahoo.com

Complaint about block by Cyde

Cyde put me on a 24 hour block without fair warning. In addition, he has also deleted my userpage. Can anything be done about this serious abuse of power? Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty obvious disruption / personal attacks, this ones is valid and is hardly admin abuse -- Tawker 03:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How was it disruptive and who was I attacking? Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 03:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See the userbox debates, calling wikipedia admins the secret police, don't say that again as it was a obvious personal attack. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say wikipedia admins were the "secret police"? The fact is I did not. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 03:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On at least 10 TFDs. Your activities on TFD alone are block worthy, and your spamming user talk pages requesting unblocking is not making you look any less disruptive. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The block template suggests the blocked user may like to contact administrators plural. In my recent experience a significant number responded sympathetically to me. There are good admins and bad admins. Although I make no inference about this particular case we need as a community to address the issue.Mccready 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said wikipedia admins were the "secret police". As far as the TFD's are concearned, am I not allowed to weigh in the the subject? It just happens to be something I feel strongly about. And, let see.....spam....hmmm....I don't see any spam! If you could be show it to me? Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See here. --InShaneee 03:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not alone he is blocked me and many others without even giving the a fair warning. And if you think thats bad you should see how many times he has violated WP:BITE on this site. I have been trying to explain for a while now that Cyde abuses his powers, but nobody wanted to listen. Now Cyde is getting his, karma Cyde, karma. --GorillazFan Adam 04:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm listening. --mboverload@ 09:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You really might want to investigate these potential "allies" before joining sides with them. Here's a hint ... most blocks by admins are for good reason. --Cyde↔Weys 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

...Someone is completely oversensitive. Calling an admin a troll is one thing, expressing your opinion that a small contingent of admins are trying to kill the userboxes as the secret police is another. Get a backbone. Jesus christ, send him a message saying that doing that kind of thing is not acceptable. Admins are supposed to be models for how people should act. That is CLEARLY not happening in this case. Looks like my next option is initiating a straw poll against this kind of abuse. --mboverload@ 09:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he also had a section devoted to blocked users who were "victims" of the "Wikipedia Secret Police". These users had nothing to do with boxes (see Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one). We don't need this kind of bullshit. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The heading of this section is "Vandalism by Cyde", so, exactly what vandalism am I being accused of? --Cyde↔Weys 10:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see it has been turned into a better name now :-P Cyde↔Weys 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's unsat. WP:CIV doesn't get magically turned off and on, and it applies to everyone editing wikipedia, regardless of how "wrong" you may think that they are. Please try to set a better example, everyone. I've made the section heading neutral. - brenneman^{L} 12:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User page deletion

Further, looking at the last version of the page prior to deletion, I'd call it uncivil in some bits but hardly warranting speedy deletion. Am I missing something? - brenneman^{L} 12:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the edit summaries he used on his page? It's obvious this guy is a mere troll, and everything he was putting on there was purposefully inflammatory. We don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a free webhost for such nonsense. --Cyde↔Weys 12:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, and are you aware at all of the history of previous attempts by admins to "supress trolls" via deleting their user pages? DeeCeeVoice, SPUI, etc? Do you not see that by deleting it you are falling for his con? What happens if I simply ignore him and get on with the real business? Sure, the sections on "This user is opposed to the Wiki-Police State," and "If anyone has evidence of an admin deleteing something from your User or Talk pages, please let me know. I'm creating a list of these admins. Thanks!" are juvenile and pointless but by rising to the bait you prove his point. The same with the userbox deletion, you're stuck in a cycle of butting heads, and you're hoping that by mashing the delete button enough times the other people will eventually give upo and go away. They won't. - brenneman^{L} 12:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You're falling for his con. You're the one taking his side on ANI. He's getting exactly what he wanted. --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's deletable trash. If he attempts to recreate it, he will be blocked again for further personal attacks and trolling. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to enunciate a principle here: Any administrative action by Cyde Weys, regardless of content or merit, will be challenged on WP:ANI, and linked to userboxes, even if said action did not involve these in any way. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen's Law? I think this might just earn a place on WP:RAUL. ;) Kimchi.sg 14:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty disingenuous to suggest this has nothing to do with userboxes. At least let's try to stay honest while we're at it. This was a page with very very tame content. There was nothing on it that was a personal attack, although there were several things that were less than scintillating. To recreate that page would only be "trolling" if the bully-boy crew continues to look for excused to pull on the steel capped boots. Really, don't be daft: Who even saw this page before it was deleted?

brenneman^{L} 14:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has do with the streetcar running. We can't possibly know who saw it beforehand; for all we know nobody looks at the Main Page. On the other hand, we know from looking at the deleted content that the user was referring to admins (not named, for unknown reasons) as "Secret Police" for banning users over a dispute which had nothing to do with userboxes (I've linked the relevant people above). Steel-capped boots indeed; I wear tennis shoes myself. Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review blocks related to Kosovo revert war and associated RCU

There's discussion of this on the parent page, but it's probably better placed here. On the the basis of the results of this checkuser request, I've blocked User:Bormalagurski and User:C-c-c-c for 48 hours each, User:24.87.36.246 for three hours, and User:SerbianMafia indefinitely. C-c-c-c protests (in what seems to be characteristically foul-keyboarded fashion) that they're "two different people" (between four accounts/addresses, mind you), but I'm hardly in a position to second-guess the "accounts are being used to subvert Wikipedia policy" judgement of the RCU. If anyone wants to shorten the blocks due to lack of clarity as to what's going on, or lengthen them due to epic incivility, they should feel free. Alai 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Are non Administrators allowed to...

Are non Aministrators allowed to comment on issues on this project page that were initiated by others? Thank you. Wallie 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone, in fact. - Mailer Diablo 08:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Initiate them, too. It should be said, however, that this page should be a last resort not a first. The initial stop should be the talk page (or article page) closer to the source, than perhaps pick and admin who'se active and ping them with the issue. Check Special:Log to see who is around. - brenneman^{L} 12:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin

PZFUN nominated 36 Judaism-related articles for deletion in what, to be honest, looks like a WP:POINT (though I want to AGF), apparently supported by NicholasTurnbull, who also voted to delete, and was on most of them the only person other than PZFUN to do so. Many of the articles seemed to be legitimate, although some could use tidying; for example, there were pages about important rabbis like Dovber of Mezeritch, one of the most important figures in Hasidic Judaism. This almost certainly has to do with a recent row between PZFUN and User:IZAK, where IZAK objected to PZFUN's AfD nomination of another Jewish article, and the row led to harsh words, which led Nicholas to block IZAK, and a fuss ensued. This seems to be some sort of follow-up. I've closed the AfDs as speedy keeps, which is not to say that there aren't some that might be legitimate noms (I did find one that clearly was, so I didn't close that one), but these bulk deletions coming so soon after an argument seem inappropriate. I'd welcome other input on this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I would tend to agree that some of the articles nominated do seem non-notable, I do question his motivation behind the mass of nominations, especially due to the timing. --InShaneee 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, should a user or admin be slowed down, just because someone else has been uncivil at them? He's been doing cleanup, by the look of it. If I had looked, I might have even speedied some of the nominated articles, as they simply do not establish notability at all.

I agree with Slimvirgins Ignore All Rules speedy closure, just to keep the peace for now, but those articles really really need review. (some of the articles so speedy kept had like 5-10 delete votes on them... not normally a speedy keep :-) )

Kim Bruning 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some need to be tidied, but it might have been better to do that than nominate them, and in some cases just as fast. For example, all that was really wrong with Ben Zion Halberstam (The First), a notable rabbi, was that someone had added a long list of his descendants, so I deleted the list, [99] and the article, or stub, is fine now. It's not exactly an FA candidate, but it should certainly survive an AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the situation, the closes were a poor idea, IMO. They certainly weren't speedy keep candidates, they had opposition, and some of them certainly wouldn't meet standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the closures were a bad idea. Most of those articles clearly needed review. --Strothra 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I too agree. Irrespective of the motivation for a nomination, once an article is AfDed, the discussion belongs not to the original nominator but to the community writ large; where other users have expressed support for delete on legitimate grounds, the debates oughtn't to be closed (to be sure, where all "votes" were keep and where no legitimate reason was given for deletion in the nom, a speedy keep, per WP:SNOWBALL and WP:IAR is in order. Finally, the timing of these AfD is, of course, rather interesting, but we ought to continue to assume good faith; one often finds that, after a vociferous debate has ensued apropos of a given AfD, other similar articles may be AfDed, primarily because, in looking at one article one thinks to be deficient/unencyclopedic, one often finds articles that share characteristics with that which one has AfDed. Joe 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of them were speedy-keep candidates. But regardless, the row between PZFUN and IZAK got pretty nasty, and then Nicholas blocked IZAK for NPA, so it's inappropriate for those two editors to try to delete 36 articles that IZAK probably cares about just a day or so later. I'm assuming good faith here (I don't know PZFUN but I understand he's a good and trustworthy editor, and I know Nicholas is), but you can see why they might look like bad-faith nominations, and the appearance of that should have occurred to them. If the articles are that bad, someone else will nominate them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, while you have a bit of a point, it would mean that to prevent a legitimate (set of) edit(s), all one has to do is start a row with the editor in question. :-/ Kim Bruning 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take that point too. I think perhaps part of the problem here is that many of these figures are not written about on the Web, or not much, and so much of the sourcing is in books. It would help in future if the editors on these pages could make sure they add full citations for their sources, then editors reviewing the articles can at least see that someone has done careful research, even if they can't immediately check the source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! :-) Kim Bruning 17:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominating so many articles for deletion at once was a bad disruptive thing obviously, but I think SlimVirgin doing a mass-keep was not a good idea either. That gives the (most likely false) appearance that an administrator is using his/her adminship position/leverage a bit beyond what one should do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While discussing of policy is great fun, what needs to be done now is to actually get these articles cleaned up. Preferably to featured status, of course ;-) Any suggestions that might help with this? Kim Bruning 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel SlimVirgin's action was wise, even though obviously not conforming to standard policy, and indicated for the greater good of the Wikipedia project. --Lambiam^Talk 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the Speedy Keep action. It seems heavy handed, given that there was no consensus, even if you ignore the original parties. Yes, it makes sense that old rabbis are notable, but their articles are not exempt from the same scrutiny and process as all others. If they have verifiable sources, the sources should be cited in the articles - they don't have to be instant Web or google sites. Same goes for the schools and camps, although one would expect those to have a google-space presence. WP rules are there to be followed even if a mass AfD nomination casts doubt on AGF. Crum375 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferdinandlewis

User keeps removing prod, when concern isn't addressed. Yanksox 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Links? Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

RMS Sockpuppet back again

Banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com back again, this time as 65.88.88.214. Starting revert-wars, link format weirdness, POV, usual stuff. See [100] and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Rms125a@hotmail.com - Ali-oops^✍ 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd say so. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)