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

Exicornt Vandalism/EddieSegoura

While checking into a possible sockpuppet situation on RfA, I discovered that Y-y-yoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DavidOr tiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both blocked exicornt vandals, are sockpuppets of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was suspected in the mass-exicornt vandalism on several other Wikimedia projects. Both had already been permablocked for exicornt vandalism, but a decision needs to be made on what to do with EddieSegoura. The floor is open for suggestions. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure connection? An indefinite block would seem clearly called for. See above section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, how reliable is the connection? IIRC, the vandalism was done through AOL, so a CheckUser could be unreliable there. I would support an indefinite block if it were the case, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were AOL, I wouldn't have reported it as a confirmed result; I am aware of the proxying behavior of AOL, and the unreliable nature of thier IP shifts. The above named accounts are not using AOL, they are using a static non-AOL IP, they are the only users using it, and they are using it in a manner that dispells any suggestion of dynamic assignment. They are the same person. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If they are the same person, then indefinate block is in order. He has been trolling for way too long. DGX 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been roughly six months of trolling, FWIW. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've applied an indefinite block; further review, as always, welcome. Now I'm going to try not to get too maudlin about the whole thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the unusual approach of overturning Bunchofgrapes' original block and replacing an identical one of my own. I left some rationale behind the decision here. At the moment, I think we need to decide what would be the best thing to do. At the moment, I think what would be best to do is to leave the block as is, and any administrator who wishes to take responsibility for shortening the block can do so at their own volition. At minimum, the block should stay for a little bit, but in deference to the original blocking sentiment, I'd like to get more opinions and see what others think about the situation. Thanks for your time and responses. --HappyCamper 06:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The recent activities of his sockpuppets show that he still doesn't understand how to work within Wikipedia, or else he's been trolling us all along. And the cross-project exic*nt fun suggests the latter. But in either case, it's been six months, and I think the community's patience is thoroughly worn out. The block should stand, in my opinion. FreplySpang 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Any others? --HappyCamper 06:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

<--- unindenting... Block fully supported on my end. I've dealt with this user before, and he has really, really worn out the patience of a lot of us, both here and at Wiktionary. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:04 UTC (2006-05-26)

I agree in that the block should stand; I also agree that Eddie's been trolling the crap out of us since the original Exicornt debate. He was fully aware that sockpuppets were the wrong way to go about things.  RasputinAXP  c 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block too. Just wondering, is there any way a steward can check the IP range from this report on other projects, to be make a case for a Wikimedia-wide ban? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That would require a separate checkuser on every project; if there is reason to think he's active on another project, then I'm happy to hand the IPs off to a steward so they can check, but outside that, I doubt you're going to convince a steward to set permissions on hundreds of wikis and spend several days checking each. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

He also uses AOL, wth which he's been evading his block/ban. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:02 UTC (2006-05-27)

He's prolly upset over the whole ordeal and is sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Too late now, Eddie. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Never. What have I done to wrong you, Calton? I never attacked You or messed up Your edits.

Don't make it personal, Eddie. Besides, it's what you've done to Wikipedia that's at issue, namely, trying to hijack it as a vehicle for promoting a word you made up. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While the small handful of users wants Me to quit editing WP, I will continue working without an username. I am willing to negotiate and agree with a shorter "Block" but if My username is locked indefinitely, what have I got to lose by contributing more edits if they're productive. Besides, this discussion is over fact I have more then one account that posted content that another user rejected. --[Eddie] 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Actually by 207.200.116.138 (talk · contribs)

While the small handful of users wants Me to quit editing WP... Eddie, you're community banned. You've exhausted the patience of multiple editors and admins, not "a small handful", and your recent edits have been anything BUT productive. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if I did drive some people crazy, it's never too late to ask them for forgivness. Its a shame You feel I'm a terrible user. --[Eddie] 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually by 152.163.100.65 (talk · contribs)

Eddie, quit trying to foist off the responsibility on others: it's your bad behavior that's at issue. Your apparent inability to accept that doesn't help you. --Calton | Talk 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blaming others, I'm just asking for forgiveness. --[Eddie] 11:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were "blaming others", I was saying you were trying to foist the responsibility for your treatment on others. "[S]mall handful of users", "What have I done to wrong you[?]", "Even if I did drive some people [emphasis mine] crazy"; all these are ways redirect blame from yourself, as if it's the reaction of others that's the problem. And more to the point, you haven't said more than a generic "I'm sorry" without the least acknowledgement of why you're supposed to sorry. So, direct question, Eddie: why have you been community banned? --Calton | Talk 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well according to this discussion it's because either I have more than one account or because I posted a redirect under a word that was reject by other users. Some said that I've been "trolling" but that's not true. I don't harass members. Besides, I would not have been forced out of a username had it not been for this discussion. It will be archived soon so unless You're offended by Me interacting with You, I'll have to email You. --[Eddie] 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well according to this discussion... The moment I read that, I knew I was in trouble, and the rest was just confirmation. No, you don't understand at all. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is still going on? Don't feed the Eddie, folks. It's what he wants.  RasputinAXP  c 02:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it is, I will continue to dispute this whether you likt it or not. I'm not stupid. --[Eddie] 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Doc_glasgow is on another userbox deletion spree citing T2

User:Doc_glasgow has delete 50+ political and/or POV userbox templates, citing WP:CSD#Templates speedy deletion criteria for templates T2, which is heavily contested, never was introduced as policy and has no consensus. According to the official speedy deletion criteria T1 only "divisive or inflammatory" templates should be speedy-deleted. These actions blatantly disregard process and consensus on Wikipedia. I request that the speedy deleted templates are restored and T2 deletion actions are ceased. CharonX 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that userbox mass deletion was endorsed by Jimbo? Henceforth we should not be blaming admins who support Jimbo, we should be blaming Jimbo. The fact that userboxes state affiliations and hence biases, and hence make public the POV pushing that exists on Wikipedia is relevant. It proves that WP:NPOV cannot work. Perhaps Jimbo wants to hold on to the illusion that we are all robots? 203.122.194.131 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Userboxes, which are meant to be on User pages, which are never encyclopedic to begin with, cannot be NPOV. That and the sysop who deleted all of the templates has been desysopped and has left Wikipedia for good (after being disruptive and deleting WP pages among others). T2 is no longer a rule, and T1 is still being contested. And Jimbo does not endorse mass deletion (at least from what I gathered here). Ryulong 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What Jimbo endorses is The German solution, i.e., the userfying of all the userboxes, with POV allowed. Some industrious users are already at work, setting up directories of userboxes in the user space. It's basically a done deal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- is Back !

He is just ignoring us and is using his sock puppets to avoid his Block! What can be done? He has more than one "tell" that gives him away. --Sott 08:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ril's Signature

----Ril- (talk · contribs · block log) AKA -- -- Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal-- -- Victim of signature fascism -- -- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) -- --Doc (?) -- --Doc ^ask? -- --Doc Glasgow

This User and his Sockpuppets can be recognised by his confusing signatures. He is avoiding the userblock. --Rixx 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stalk and block

-Ril- (talk · contribs · block log) AKA -- -- Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal-- -- Victim of signature fascism -- -- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) -- --Doc (?) -- --Doc ^ask? -- --Doc Glasgow has always been a bit if a bully. His old Sockpuppets used to like to stalk and redirect. Now that he has admin powers he is even more of a problem. See what Doc/Ril did to TheFacts !! He is a problem user who can cover up what he does! --Rixx 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So Doc Glasgow is a stalker? Then why did he delete his userpage? Because he was the victim of stalking? Or because he is hiding what he has done? On the internet, stalkers and their victims can become muddied to the untrained eye. Think carefully before presuming who is the guilty party. 203.122.194.131 16:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The guilty party? I try not to attend any other kind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Striver/users that view the 9/11 attacks article as govement pov

i created a user sub-page to gather information, NOT to create dialog, and MONGO just deleted it outright. Could somebody undelete it? Is he allowed to just outright delete my userspace sub-article just like that? --Striver 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a good reason to delete this subpage, which is that it can be used for vote stacking to support a certain POV. However, that's WP:MFD business, so as there is no other discussion here I've restored it. Ashibaka tock 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this: [1] . Can a admin behave in that maner?--Striver 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm always concerned about the govement. --Golbez 09:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make a list, get out a piece of paper. --mboverload@ 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it twice now. If it is deleted again you will have to use WP:DRV. Ashibaka tock 00:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Striver 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking

I went bold and moved it to a subpage: /Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle - the thread is 190 kilobytes long. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reiki vandal and suspected sock puppet

User 58.178.137.47 vandalised Reiki with this edit. Given the history of edits, can someone please check if the account is a sockpuppet. Thanks. Mccready 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mcready. You are most unhelpful. Why don't you try talking to me? You bet I know my way around Wikipedia. Your behaviour is borderline breaching WP:OWN on that article. You are making the mistake of thinking you couldn't possibly be in the minority when actually, you are in the minority. Your edits are unwanted. Get over yourself. I am nobodies sockpuppet. I am simply anonymous. 58.178.137.47 11:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, which user are you also accusing? Who do you claim I am sockpuppet of? I hope you notified them. 58.178.137.47 04:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he's a sockpuppet, but he was a vandal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedist (aka Clyde vandal) announces massive vandalism attack

A few weeks back, Encyclopedist blew up at User:John Reid, and launched a major sock-puppetting attack on John. When the attack was traced back to Encyclopedist and the underlying IP was blocked, Encyclopedist staged a showy exit from the project. Except he has never fully left, continuing to request unblocking of the IP itself. This request has been denied several times.

Now, on that IP talk page, he says that he was the "Clyde vandal" (not familiar with that vandal myself), that he's about to gain access to a large number of different computers from which to edit, and about to launch some new, major vandal attacks against John Reid, User:Mackensen, and the project in general.

No idea how credible the threat is, but this guy has definitely displayed some finesse in his previous attacks on John. Mostly wanted to toss this up here to get a few more eyes on alert if he does begin his threatened assault tomorrow. - TexasAndroid 18:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

He was indeed the Clyde vandal (see User:Essjay/Checkuser/Cases/CIyde); I knew at the time there was a connection through university IPs, but because he was considered an upstanding Wikipedian, I decided that it was another student at the university. It is entirely possible that he's graduated now, but if not, a phone call to the University's ITS department, and perhaps to the Dean's office, will clear it up immediately, permanently, and to the satisfaction of all involved. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, if it helps in identifying him, here's a picture I took of him (sitting next to Jimbo Wales) at the St. Pete meetup Raul654 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Presumably after seeing my above post) Encyclopedist emailed me tonight to say that he will not be vandalizing anymore. A call to his university is not necessarily. Raul654 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He has posted to my Talk page as User:MyApology and sounds sincere. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:MONGO

Over on Talk:7 World Trade Center, User:MONGO has been personally attacking me, calling me an "idiot," and threatening to block me based solely on my viewpoint. See, for example, [2]. I feel he has all but forbidden me from editing that page at all, declaring any advancement of alternate viewpoints on the collapse of 7 WTC to be "policy violations" and trying to determine the outcome of a content dispute by threatening to use his admin powers. See, e.g., [3].

I'm fed up with his behavior. I don't want to file an RfC at this time, but I'd appreciate it if someone would have a talk with him. --Hyperbole 07:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

uh, yeah, there's really no point in this, if you knew anything about MONGO's past you'd realize 2 things:

one) as an admin he threatens personal violence against people he doesn't like a lot less than he used to, and I happen to prefer the milder, less-likely-to-threaten-to-track-you-down-and-send-you-to-prison-for-disagreeing-with-him-on-the-internet MONGO, a kinder, gentler MONGO if you will,

and two) you're not telling people something they don't already know, if you'll take a quick look at his RFA for instance, you'll see that most of the support was based on the fact that he is incredibly and openly partasain, as well as openly hostile, heck, half the support votes were from people who have been long since banned for open trolling, so if you think something's actually changed since then to errode that kind of support, you're quite mistaken--64.12.116.65 11:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He'd be blocking you for violating WP:NPOV and being a disruption, not for your views. Please find a more productive way to contribute. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I never called you an idiot.--MONGO 07:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I told you what I believed, and you said that anyone with those beliefs was an idiot. Let's not split hairs. --Hyperbole 07:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a matter of perception.--MONGO 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are complaining about my comments, yet I even seriously offered to nominate you for adminship since you think I am so unfit. The offer still stands of course.--MONGO 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want adminship; I don't have that level of experience yet. What I want is civil discussion and the respect every contributor to Wikipedia should be due. You seem determined not to provide that. --Hyperbole 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's like this you see...ask once, the answer is "no". Ask twice, the answer is "NO". Ask a third time and the answer is "NO!" The fourth time and it becomes "Are you hard of hearing? NO way!" Of course there is a fifth and it becomes, "NO WAY! NEVER! Stop asking!" Eventually the response (after incessant badgering about the same old tired nonsense)..."You must be an idiot!"...see WP:V and WP:RS--MONGO 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO ignoring desicions made at ANI: [4]

MONGO "inquiring" about my true identity: [5]

Can someone de-admin MONGO, he is really not a productive force. --Striver 10:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and have seen many instances where MONGO is productive. -- Samir धर्म 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongo seems to be a good and civil editor and admin on non-9/11 related articles. However, on anything 9/11 he becomes obnoxious. (This one is actually quite funny, but I think he ment to be insulting) Seabhcán 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't deadmin him as he is a capable and I am sure well-intentioned editor. Some of his work on the national Parks articles is worthwhile. He has erred though in his attitude towards certain users on the 9/11 related articles and should refrain from editing them for a period (a month or two?) to help him get a sense of perspective.

I find comments like:

• "That's not a POV..that's a mission statement."
• "That is a bunch of crap"
• "I am also about ready to start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages."
• "In my opinion, we are arguing with trolls mostly"
• "I will not assume any good faith when POV pushers try to add nonsense to the articles" (all collated on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MONGO#Talk:7_World_Trade_Center) very disturbing. WP:AGF is not to be employed just when you feel like it, it is an absolute rule.

I also find his reply to Hyperbole above ('Eventually the response (after incessant badgering about the same old tired nonsense)..."You must be an idiot!" ') deeply disturbing. As someone who threatens blocks quite frequently for perceived breaches of wiki policy, and as an admin, he should know that WP:NPA is not just for when you feel like it, it is for all the time.

Take some time out, work on other parts of Wikipedia, and you may rediscover that Wiki can be fun. At the moment you are spoiling it for yourself and for others because of the misguided "mission statement" you have taken on. Nobody can own any part of Wikipedia and you may need to rediscover that too. --Guinnog 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for perspective, he blocked me once for this comment:

Not if you are working in the Homeland Security and happen to be named User:MONGO [6]

I find the above enumerated statments as much more severe than the one MONGO blocked me for. Do we have a double standard? I cant use sarkasm, but MONGO can call people "idiots"? Thats how i fell it is. --Striver 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the objection to Mongo is that he is enforcing the rules: Cite reliable sources; No undue weight; No original research; No link spam. These persistent efforts to lard the 9/11 articles with junk science and conspiracist nonsense have long since passed the point of being disruptive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tom, and fully support MONGO here. NoSeptember ^talk 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is his aim, he can try to do it without insults. Seabhcán 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Seabhcan...no insults...something you seem to relish yourself in edit summaries...[7], [8], [9], [10], replacing insults made by a troll in discussion pages [11], moving the article that you can't force your wide-eyed nonsense into off to your own userspace solely to create your POV version[12].--MONGO 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Which bits of those comments offended you, Mongo? I didn't call you an 'idiot' or a 'fool' as you did me, I said (with a touch of scarcasism), that you were a 'philosopher'. Also, your removal of that IP users comments was uncalled for. He was making a comment and you removed it four times and then protected the talk page. There was nothing trollish about his comment. However, your censorship of the talk page certainly bordered on trolling. Seabhcán 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Start following wikipedia policies yourself (WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL) and you will find that people will take you much more seriously when you try and enforce them on others. --Guinnog 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 articles are akin to the problems we have with our biographies...they are under attack by POV pushers of nonsense such as yourself and this nonsense puts Wikipedias reputation for reliable witness and neutrality at risk. There is no good faith to be assumed when editors such as yourself fight for adding junk science to article space...3,000 people died that day and it directly impacted the lives of at least 100,000 more whose had lost their loved ones and friends...do you realize how many potential lawsuits I and others may have saved Wikipedia from if those articles are filled with insultingly inaccurate junk science that claims that the U.S. Government or others blew up the buildings or that they sanctioned the attacks to justify a war in Iraq? Tis a pity so many seem to wish to use Wikipedia resources to push such a horrible bunch of lies into our articles. Yes, I should be blocking others for disruption much more often...block all time wasting trolls.--MONGO 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just the reason that People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report was deleted. MONGO is simply enforcing the rules, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and many other Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is a not a free-for-all. If you want to post stuff on the web, without these rules, a Blog would be suitable. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely. (As he has done many times before) MONGO is clearly doing a very good job in ensuring that this article is well referenced and includes neutral facts. He has done nothing inappropriate whatoever. However, admins are always held to high standards in their behaviour, and I do suggest that MONGO drop the tone just a notch. Really no reason to call any group of people idiots for any reason. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree entirely, except with your last point. There is no call for abuse; I have never treated this user with anything other than courtesy, in spite of being called (just above) a "POV pusher of nonsense" and a "time wasting troll", among other things. In spite of all these deeply inappropriate behaviours, Mongo, I do still believe you are acting in good faith. But I think a wee rest from this "mission" you have set yourself will do you, the rest of us, and even the articles we are debating, immense good. I am ready to receive your apology for the insults whenever you are ready to give it, and until then, I see no benefit in any continued discussion of your behaviour, either here or on any other page. Sincere best wishes until then --Guinnog 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to rest...whatever do you mean? I owe you something...what is that exactly...I should apologize to you when your efforts are to add nonsense to our articles, thereby putting Wikipedia's reputation at risk...it is you that should go elsewhere, and I recommend as others have perhaps a blog will do. I offer no apology and I offer no respite and intend to insult you and others that intend to insult and compromise the integrity of these articles with your nonsense.--MONGO 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom, MONGO is fully justified in his actions. --rogerd 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Many of the 9/11 articles are under siege by people promoting conspiracy theories who have little regard for the standards that the Wikipedia should maintain. There's been months of edit-warring over the insertion that Larry Silverstein conspired with government and non-government entities to destroy 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 by a controlled-demolition. How many times does one have to delete that before one calls the inserter an time wasting troll? It is a provocation. patsw 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, the POV pushing on that page (and others) is relentless. Mongo has been tireless resisting attempts by a very small handful of editors to sidestep editorial rules. They have us going round and round in circles making us repeat the same valid objections time after time...at some point they need to stop. I'm sure they'd love Mongo to step away from that page but it's to all our benefit that he hasn't. Rx StrangeLove 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. This user just seems to be angry at Mongo responsibly using his admin powers to stop his continous violations of NPOV and refusal to accept the community's consensus. Should Mongo be more careful about his tone, yes, but is he doing what any other responsible admin would do, clearly yes. This is, in my opinion, a violation of WP:POINT. The purpose is to create this, get users who agree with 9/11 truth to post in it and smear Mongo, with the purpose of stoping him from doing his responsiblities as an admin.--Jersey Devil 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By 'this user', do you mean Hyperbole, Seabhcán, Striver or me? I assure you the only point I am trying to make is that User:MONGO needs to "be more careful about his tone", as you put it, bigstyle. Nobody that I have seen on the WTC7 page has tried to sidestep editorial rules, other than arguably Mongo himself when he threatened to "start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages" in (presumably) an effort to stifle the normal debate on content which typifies Wikipedia talk pages. As a good-faith editor who has always sought compromise and consensus in my dealings with him, I strongly object to being called names or threatened. A gentle reminder to the user about WP:CIVIL may be all that is needed, though, looking at the uncompromising stance he seems to be taking in some of his replies above, this optimism may be misplaced. --Guinnog 10:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What is there to compromise about? In other words, you want to cite as evidence information gleemed from unreliable websites and books that are not scientific. What compromise is there to be had...policy clearly disallows this.--MONGO 10:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I just picked up the following: "Sure...I guess if the poll demonstrated that an overwhelming number of person did not think there was a conspiracy, you wouldn't even be bothering to link it...who do you think you're fooling?--MONGO 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)"[13]. I had hoped that this user had improved his conduct; this reply (and to be honest, some of the ones above), make that belief harder to sustain. Clear breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, again. Could somebody 'have a word' with him, please, so that everyone involved can get on with trying to improve the article? Thanks in advance --Guinnog 04:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a word with him.--MONGO 05:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Phaedriel

Phaedriel is being nailed by a stalker at the moment. Those of you who are on the mailing list know about it. Anything that anyone can do to help would be appreciated. Right now, more than anything else, Phaedriel needs our support and I hope people will give it to her. Her userpage has information on what's been going on. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I just add that she's asked to be left alone in quiet contemplation. Let's try to respect that. --kingboyk 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But she also posted about the stalking on her user page, so she is not trying to keep it secret. NoSeptember ^talk 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to find ways of protecting, defending and supporting users who come under the kind of psychological warfare attacks she was subject to. I suppose one thing we could do is encourage users who need anonymity to preserve it from their first edit and choice of user name. A beginning user has little reason to anticipate the day they may be required to deal with difficult people who will exploit personal information. Fred Bauder 14:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, although the last time I saw this topic discussed, it got limited response. NoSeptember ^talk 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to add language in the registration dialog discouraging people from disclosing their actual identities (well, at least pointing out that several people have received real-life harrassment due to activities on wikipedia), but couldn't convince anyone else: [14] and [15] were the strongest statements I could get in. Demi ^T/_C 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's important that those that wish to remain anonymous do so by not reveiling their real name, their place of work, where they hang out, etc. I would be cautious about telling people to not post personal information by ensuring the wording doesn't freak people out and cause them to not contribute. I don't think she is under any potentiality of losing her job...just her privacy perhaps.--MONGO 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can do a few things, or Wikimedia could, to help prevent one type of stalking (threats to work). We should probably get the Foundation to have a couple of letters on hand that explain to employers that the named person is a volunteer and might well be harrassed for working for the good of mankind. That would help in that part of things (and it can be written in a neutral manner that doesn't take a position on a particular argument). Additionally, though, we need to be able to generate multiple calls to authorities to indicate the severity of a personal stalking. Geogre 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see no reason the foundation cannot lend a hand in the manner you have described.--MONGO 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Guillen (talk, contribs)

This user has begun to try my patience.

He has twice vandalized my user page [16], [17], accusing me of being some kind of Catholic anti-evangelical bigot. (For the record, I am not Catholic - I am a conservative, evangelical, born again, Bible-believing, whatever term you want to use - they all mean the same to me, Christian.)

He has three times completely replaced without comment a well-written Spiritual warfare article with a POV/original research piece. [18], [19], [20]. See afd discussion of his version.

He also left an inflammatory message on User:Jim Henry's talk page [21].

He has posted material on Plymouth Brethren several times that is block copied from http://www.brethrenonline.org/faqs/PBHIST.HTM - [22], [23]

I, and others have left several messages to User talk:Guillen attempting to explain the problems with his edits, but there has been no acknowledgement of them other than calling us evil Catholics.

If you look at his contributions, there seems to be something of a language barrier. Many of his contributions are in more or less broken English and he seems to see a strong bias where there is none. Assuming good faith, is it possible for someone who speaks his native language (Swedish?) to engage him on his talk page about these issues?

One other diff - [24] - to an AFD of an article he wrote - tries my ability to assume good faith.

BigDT 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• content dispute?--205.188.116.65 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Vandalism of a user page, repeatedly posting copyvio material, replacing articles with personal essays, and personal attacks go beyond a content dispute BigDT 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have reverted what I viewed as a personal attack placed on User:BigDT's userpage by this user. I also note that every edit he has made has been marked as minor. The user hasn't made an edits since the three talk messages I left earlier today, including instructions on both of those points. GRBerry 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:THE KING and OR in Monash University dorm articles

THE KING (talk · contribs) has been edit warring (albeit slowly) over the inclusion of what I consider blatant POV OR to articles about dorms and related topics to Monash University. See this for his most recent attempt to restore this content, which at best describes without any hope of verification (or encyclopedic worth) what the social atmosphere of the dorm is as far as drinking and bar hopping, and at worst makes such claims as the prevalence of homosexuality on certain dorm floors, and the masturbation habits of certain students. See also [25] and [26] for a couple more examples. THE KING has complained about this on my talk page, taking it as a personal vendetta, so I'm posting here because of that and the fact that I'm rather sick of policing these stupid dorm articles (see links at Monash Residential Services). Postdlf 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think what postdlf is trying to get at here is that he thinks it's acceptable to just flollok about the place reverting peoples edits because they contain something that he doesn't like. If you dont like it, remove the offending statement - don't revert the entire edit, which i may have worked on for some time to get rid of pov and OR material. eg [27], why did he have to de-wikify the links too? In my opinion, postdlf is just a warmonger who cares more about noticeboards like this and pinning people up on them than he does about the integrity of the encyclopedia, and i said as much on his talk page. Yes, if you remove the entire edit i do take it as a personal vendetta and the only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta held as a votive - not in vain - for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. THE KING 17:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Or we could save ourselves a lot of trouble and just delete the entire series of articles on "Monash University residence halls" as non-notable? I don't see any claims to notability in any of the six articles, and as long as they exist, they're going to attract nonsense like this. Demiurge 18:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that option as well. Postdlf 18:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Well we all know they wouldn't pass AFD. Wikipedia's politics have swung to deletionism far too much over the last year for that to happen. I guess it just comes down to whether you are mature enough to let them be? Or do you want to take the easy road, the one which you know will be worst for wikipedia? THE KING 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • • I've taken the liberty: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Residential Services. Demiurge 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You have demonstrated your immaturity as expected. THE KING 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Strange how placing such information in Wikipedia is mature, but removing it is not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Please dont enter into this discussion without the appropriate context, morv. Removing this info is not the cause of my concern. Dont make me add you to my List of people who need a kick in the arse for taking the easy road. THE KING 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm reverting your edits because the "faggot" reference on your user page is a personal attack, and in my opinion so is your "List of people who need a kick in the arse for taking the easy road" because it's reporting what you see as editor deficiencies in an aggressive and confrontational manner. However, that said I've made my point I won't be reverting any more. Please have a think about it. --kingboyk 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that THE KING's User page specifically attacks the principles of NOR and Verifiability. I'm sorry, but those are official Wikipedia policies, and you'll have to get them changed before you try avoiding them. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The AFD is taking care of the dorm articles, but he's also continued to insert an OR/student vanity paragraph into Passion Pop, with such beautifully encyclopedic statements as this: "Many prefer this drink over beer, and since it is as cheap if not cheaper, it often finds its way into low class University functions, either straight or in a punch."[28] I've already removed it (again), but I also think the rest of that article needs to be pruned for OR beyond that obvious paragraph. Postdlf 00:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review needs unprotection

Please see the appropriate talk page. Censorship of wikipedia's opponents does three things:

• Make us look like a cult
• Make us look like we support censorship of pov's that we dont like
• make it difficult to read an npov view of them.

So can an admin please de-salt the earth there. Cheers. THE KING 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not gonna happen. Most, if not all, admins will agree that this article should not be restored. Just try asking a few. User:69.117.12.239 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "censoring" "Wikipedia's opponents" and everything to do with established notability guidelines. We have articles on world rulers and great scientific inventions. We don't have articles on random forum communities with a few dozen members. --Cyde↔Weys 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. WP:WEB is clear on this. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a proud member of wikipedia. What makes me proudest about it however, is that all major points of view are taken into account. Thats why we can say that we work towards NPOV. I don't want to have to stop saying that. This is not a threat, just something for you to think about. Also, considering the obviously sensitive nature of this request, i propose that we put it to a vote, since i think we can all agree that it's something that the admins would have a bias against. Thankyou in advance for your neutrality in dealing with this matter. THE KING 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think this is a POV issue when it is not. POV only even comes into play once an issue is notable enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia of general knowledge. You can try putting up our notability criteria for a vote of increased leniency, but I don't think you'll get very far. --Cyde↔Weys 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

POV is a phenomonen that affects not only individual articles but the encyclopedia as a whole, in my opinion. What do you think? THE KING 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I think The King is correct to suggest that someone may oppose recreation of this article in view of the ill regard in which they hold the website (I imagine, though, that they act in good faith, believing our having an article apropos of WR to be deleterious vis-à-vis encyclopedic purposes), but, irrespective of motivation, those opposing de-salting and recreation are altogether correct with respect to WP:NOT and WP:NN (scilicet, WP:WEB); the site has an Alexa rank of 71,164 (though the rank appears to be increasing, and surely I'd be amenable to our reopening the discussion should the site reach, say, 30,000) and is not otherwise notable (mentions under Criticisms of Wikipedia, about the encyclopedic nature of which I'm not certain, would be fine, I suppose). As encyclopedists, we must be disinterested, and we oughtn't to permit our affiliation with Wikipedia to affect our editing: for the same reasons that an article about Phil Sandifer should be (and likely will be) deleted, viz., that, were we not eminently familiar with the subject in view of our association with Wikipedia, we'd think the subject non-notable, so too oughtn't we to have a Wikipedia Review article. Joe 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think User:THE KING may have a point. Perhaps this article should be recreated. It would be the perfect place to document incidents such as Daniel Brandt's blackmailing of Katefan0 to leave the wiki and the Phil Sandifer incident. Both incidents were precipitated by the atmosphere encouraged on that forum. I've always said they would be their own undoing. This would be the perfect opportunity to assist them in that endeavour.

But perhaps this all would be too self-referential. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It should redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap. And fun.  Grue  20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with redirect is that a person can quickly create a article to replace the redirect. The wikipedia review caused alot of damage already. No way I support an article on them. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects can be protected too, you know. And by the way, do you think Hurricane Katrina should be deleted, because it dealt a lot of damage ;)  Grue  20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Refusing to support an article because you consider it notable... for having done significant damage. Novel concept. 'Wikipedia, where all the articles are about nice people.' :] --CBDunkerson 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the notion of creating a protected redirect as suggested is a reasonable one. We have plenty of redirects that handle topics that do not rise to the notability level required for their own articles; in fact there is an entire class of them via the tag {{R to list entry}}. There is the risk of attracting via this redirect POV-pushing and vandalism to the Criticism of Wikipedia article, but that is nothing unique or new. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This debate belongs on WP:DRV. Where everyone with any sense will say "Legitimate AFD, validly closed, no new evidence presented, keep deleted". Has something changed since we deleted the article? Have any decent broadsheets recently given it significant and wide-ranging coverage? Have any respected academics studied the social consequences of Wikipedia Review? No? *monocle* --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway unilaterally cancels satanism userbox restoral discussion

Tony has unilaterally closed the deletion review of the Satanism userbox with the comment Closing this because such a template would obviously bring Wikipedia into disrepute.). See [29].

In my opinion this is an inappropriate use of admin powers and/or clerk powers; there are legitimate devout Satanists out there, and rejecting the presense of a userbox for them absent a policy which prevents all religious userboxes in template space is religious bigotry against a minority, tiny and kooky as it may be. Georgewilliamherbert 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd fully support this decision if we also got rid of userboxes for other religions across the board. Otherwise, it would appear that we're singling out the poor Satanists. Al 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Support I support your proposed solution of deleting all of them. --pgk^(talk) 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Count me in as supporting this proposal as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I concur that we should get rid of all such userboxes under proposed T2. However, the failure to delete any one such template can always be used to prevent deletion of another. Conversely, the deletion of any one can be cited as a precedent to delete another. You can be assured of my support in deleting any userbox falling under T2, regardless of ideology. Nevertheless, I think you'd agree that if we must be discriminatory, this isn't a bad one to see off - Satanism is particularly controversial as religions go, and identification with it will give Wikipedia a bad reputation in a way that the major religions will not.Timothy Usher 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be much easier if every single deletion was not followed by this kind of messy rigmarole at WP:DRV…we could simply wipe the lot but you can imagine the storm of protest which would ensue. To be quite frank, it strains the limits of WP:AGF to believe that absolutely everybody who says "why not just delete the lot" would actually support such a move if it occurred, and it is mostly anticipation of the backlash which keeps the mop in the bucket. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Strains the limits? Quote me: Delete the lot of them.Timothy Usher 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be made for this particular template. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The flaw here is that you are unilaterally deciding for a small, generally despised, and yet legitimate religion, while simultaneously not intervening to delete other more popular religious userboxes.

Whether religious userboxes should uniformly be removed or not is a completely differnet question than whether removing simply the tiny helpless minority is a policy of discrimination that Wikipedia should put up with.

If you want them to go, then apply that to all of them. I agree with the wider argument (not enough to actively initiate such a move, but in principle). Applying it to fringe religions one at a time but not the big ones is a grossly abusive manner of solving the problem, however.

Either initiate a blanket removal of all such userboxes, or leave the little ones alone. In between is using your personal judgement as to the validity of particular religions to substitute for Wikipedia policy consensus, and it's not good WP policy for us to let you do that. The judgement that Satanism as a template brings disrepute, but Christianity or Islam or Buddhism don't, is obviously flawed and must be overturned. Georgewilliamherbert 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Tony Sidaway.

Georgewilliamherbert wrote, "The judgement that Satanism as a template brings disrepute, but Christianity or Islam or Buddhism don't, is obviously flawed and must be overturned."

You have got to be kidding. Say it's unfair, fine, but don't pretend you can't see the difference. Even if a Satanist yourself, surely you will acknowledge that your religion (rightly or wrongly) has a poor reputation among the general public.Timothy Usher 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Satanist, no. And Satanism is far from the only religion to have a poor reputation among elements of the general public, or of the general public as a whole. Anti-Islamic sentiment was rather high on Sept 12, 2001, for example, but that would have been a grossly illegitimate reason to nuke a Muslim userbox that day.

The logic that Tony is using generally (that we shouldn't have such userboxes as a class) is fine. The specific logic, that because a majority of people don't like one particular religion we can nuke its userbox, is clearly flawed. Unpopularity is as a general rule not a valid reason to delete wikipedia-Anything. In attacking Satanism's popularity to defend Tony, you completely miss the point.

Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? It doesn't matter if something has a good or bad reputation. First of all, "reputation" is regionally and culturally arbitrary (see Islam). Secondly, WP:NOT (#1.9 in case you're not familiar with that page). Your position only comes down to what you think of the topic. But even if you could take a worldwide poll to determine a topic's reputation, that still wouldn't make it unsuitable. To build an NPOV encyclopedia requires NPOV policies, and NPOV administration of those policies. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is ludicrous. Deleting an in-progress DRV just because you don't like it is inappropriate. It would be one thing if it were WP:SNOW, but it was even money what was going to happen. (By the way, I voted or opined or whatever we call these things Keep Deleted, but that doesn't mean that the process should be terminated.) Also, User:Improv deleted Template:User Christian despite the fact that it has been through eleventy billion TFDs and DRVs and been upheld every time. IMO, both of these actions are indefensible and should be refersed immediately. BigDT 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully support tony sidaway. wikipedia does not need such template. Ideally, users shouldn't have the need to proclaim beliefs strongly on their userpages (remember? userpages are for wikiwork content), but if a user must do it, he can just write it so, it's the template what it's unneeded, has no point (since users can just write "I'm a satanist" on their pages, no censorshi issues either), and thus it was ok to get rid of it. Likewise with all political parties and religion userboxes. They are not good for wikipedia. -- Drini 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Then nominate them all for deletion, don't just start with small, unpopular ones. And don't let Tony short-circuit legitimate policy discussions based on his judgement alone. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is all or nothing, but not selectively based on whatever arguments. If religeon ones are allowed, they are all allowed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a policy to disallow religion-declaring userboxes, then it should be used uniformly. Deciding that Satanism, or any other specific religion, should be deleted is entirely partisan, which violates the spirit of WP:NPOV completely.

If Satanism is disreptuable, where do we draw the line and who draws it? Should we go after the religions that proselytize door to door? How about the ones that support polygamy? How about just the ones that we consider heretical or evil? Is this ChristianWikiPedia? Al 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that this AN/I is not supposed to be a vote on the template itself or its worth, but is a comment regarding the unilateral decision to skip such a vote. In this, I think Georgewilliamherbert is correct in saying there's no particular reason why process couldn't have been allowed to continue as it was already doing before Tony stepped in and decided it was pointless. I see no real reason to skip it except Tony saying that in his mind it is clear. That's great, Tony, but looking at the voting record makes it clear that it isn't an "obvious" answer, and the mixed response here makes it clear that there is some reason to discuss it. Rather than having a discussion-about-a-discussion, the original should just be restored and people with opinions about it should go there to discuss the merits or problems with the template. --Fastfission 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Second proposed remedy here of restoring the DRV and let it run its course. As a secondary proposal, Tony should initiate a Miscellany for Deletion for all religious userboxes. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Remarks like such a template would obviously bring Wikipedia into disrepute constitute an attack on the entire religion of satanism. It's ironic that the people who are against "inflammatory and offensive" userboxes use such divisive and inflammatory comments in their rhetoric.  Grue  20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Sidaway. Out-of-line DRVs do not need to remain open or run their course. We're building an encyclopedia. Having this in the template namespace does not contribute to this goal. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should do away with DRV and let Tony decide the suitability of all WP content. I propose a poll. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Drini 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I Support letting Tony handle all deletion reviews. Sounds like an excellent idea. --Cyde↔Weys 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.Timothy Usher 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

after the last lot of damage the inclusionists did to the DRV process I think not.Geni 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Christians have killed a lot more people than Satanists, historically. I think the faster we speedy all ideological templates the better. Making any argument based on the popularity of the religion in question is wholly inappropriate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to deleting all the religion userboxes, since Jimbo discourages their use. However, to say that we can't get rid of satanism because we have Christianity is not logical. It's most unlikely that "this user is a Christian" could harm the reputation of Wikipedia to the same extent as "this user is a satanist". Let us recall that while Jimbo seems to discourage all "this user is" boxes, and therefore can be said to disapprove of the "straight", "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" ones, the only one where he actually intervened (forcefully) was the one that said "this user is a pedophile". It seems silly to claim that a controversial userbox does no more harm to the reputation of the project than an uncontroversial one. AnnH ♫ 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, so indenting)

Pedophilia is, for good reason, illegal. Satanism is, for equally good reason, not. The idea that a Satanism userbox could somehow "harm the reputation of Wikipedia" is silly. Rather, you appear to be projecting your personal tastes on us. You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs. However, you are not entitled to force them on us.

What truly harms the reputation of Wikipedia is the accurate perception that it is a haven for bigotry. I'm absolutely certain that if I nominated all the Christian userboxes on your user page for deletion, they would survive. What does that tell you about our genuine commitment to WP:NPOV? Al 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Strictly from a legal standpoint, this is false. Pedophilia is, depending on the point of view, a paraphilia or a sexual preference, and is not illegal. In must global jurisdictions, however, acting on it is. RadioKirk talk to me 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand Musical Linguist's point, and it's clear that Satanism is less "reputable" than Christianity (in the circles we care about), but that's not my point. I'm not making the "silly" claim of Ann's last sentence above. I am claiming that it's not our place to even enter the arena of saying "this belief is reputable, this other one isn't." Once you decide that about one belief, you have to start deciding it about others, at at some point, you find yourself making completely indefensible decisions. Better to just treat all beliefs equally, as something inappropriate for template space, like Jimbo said. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we put "This user follows the cult of <Cyde/Tony Sideaway>" at {user satanist}. It'll go over great. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Avillia: How is this comment helpful? ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this discussion helpful? We are once again dragging this whole mess into AN:I and we are continuing to set a record for most Wikidrama in a week. Can we just agree to shift to a complete neutral on TfDing established userboxes until someone makes a policy which gains consensus? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What's likely to harm the reputation of Wikipedia is not consistent, and is not based on reason or justice; It's based on popular perception. If anyone thinks This user is a Satanist will not negatively effect the reputation of Wikipedia, that person is out of touch with what most people think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I give my thoughts in the form of a userbox:

{{subst:Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = #DDD | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = #EEE | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = [[Image:Face-sad.svg|45px]] | info = This user feels that [[Wikipedia:Process is Important|out of process]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletions]] subject to an administrator's whims rather than [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could. | float = left }}

This user feels that out of process deletions subject to an administrator's whims rather than consensus damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could.

BigDT 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This closure was overturned by another admin. Can we all leave this alone here now? There are better places to debate whether userboxes should be deleted. And this page is unlikely to produce any stronger remedy than overturning the early closure. GRBerry 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Second. Off to the T1/T2 debates now that it's been restored to normal WP process. Georgewilliamherbert 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of all userboxes that advocate or even identify a point of view. Incrementally, or all at once. There has been plenty of time for them to be userified (and I will happily undelete and userify on request any I judge not to be directly divisive) now. They need to go. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This point is now more-or-less moot, except that I would expect Tony to recuse himself from taking action on these particular userboxes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The proposed policy just failed consensus and, thus, the war wages on. It's time to subst the userboxes to the users' spaces and, as for the templates, "wipe them out. All of them." (Well, excepting Babel, of course.) Let's put this damned thing to bed. RadioKirk talk to me 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following comment was deleted as collateral damage in a revert - see [30] for original diff

Tony seems to be EXTREMELY controversial. Applying the same logic, why do we not delete him? I'm not suggesting that this be done; I'm just showing your reasoning applied to a different subject. --mboverload@ 22:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The logic of the userbox deletionist logic would certainly suggest that as a first step toward a solution. I'm not in favor of it, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to look at the word "unilaterally" in this section title from all angles and I just don't see it. What I see is Tony having widespread support for his actions and yet, his closure was reverted. Pot, Kettle? Oh, and I support this closure and continuing to remove these from the template space. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Widespread support? So you will have no problem getting a consensus together to make this kind of action policy?Geni 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Always the devil's advocate? I'm sure you're quite well aware of the fiasco that has been consensus making on userboxes given the flaring tempers, misunderstanding of discussion vs vote, etc. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Which means that no position has widespread support. Thus it is not a good idea to claim it. Wikipedia's normal solution to a lack of consensus is inaction. For some reason people don't appear to be ready to accept that course this time. Makes life interesting though.Geni 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Or that piling on and favoring votes over discussion has become the latest fetish. So creating scads more userboxes is inaction? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest?Geni 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Could I give you some more straw? You seem to be spreading it around rather thickly. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You seemed to indicate that useing voteing over disscussion is something new. It isn't in any case I prefer block voteing to admins trying to force issues. People trying to settle stuff by block voteing does tend to work out in the end, it also tends to involve less screaming.Geni 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's reasoning is flawed. If he thinks all religion boxes should be deleted, he should say so in his reasoning, rather than singling out Satanism. Otherwise, if he wanted to delete Satanism boxes but not other religions, that'd be highly inappropriate. Andjam 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony action was fine, and the deletions should be even more widespread as several editors on both sides of the issue have said here. Then all that energy that is being expending defending things that have nothing at all to do with building an encyclopedia can be used to...well, build an encyclopedia! Rx StrangeLove 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Tony in this matter. Userboxes, for the most part, simply need to go away.--MONGO 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I support Tony's action, though I think his comment was out of line and insulting. I'd like to see all userboxes eliminated except those specifically of value to encyclopedia building. Problem is defining that subset; right now, mine say I'm a native English speaker, a marginal German speaker, and a musician; each of these says what I do, not what I believe. I think that's where the distinction lies; but there are nasty fuzzies there. (User Catholic might be bad. User Catholicism scholar might be OK. What about User Catholic priest?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's too easy... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We can ask, what is the likely app? Language competency invites others to come to us for translation. That's practical. On the other end of the spectrum, "This user is interested in X" is a barely-disguised way to preserve the inappropriate userbox, complete with preexisting links to thusly-marked users.

There us actually no need for templates declaring our "interests", except to facilitate talk-page spamming, vote-stacking and the like.

One pillar of T2 policy ought be that offending templates must be deleted, not redirected. That way, we can't keep our partisan tokens through dishonest language.Timothy Usher 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I renew the following suggestion stated above. "This closure was overturned by another admin. Can we all leave this alone here now? There are better places to debate whether userboxes should be deleted. And this page is unlikely to produce any stronger remedy than overturning the early closure. GRBerry 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)" The template is back in deletion review. Better places to discuss T1 and T2 include but are certainly not limited to Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates. GRBerry 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Michaellovesnyc

User:Michaellovesnyc has been making repeated edits that push his point of view on Mail-order bride. User:24.45.47.102 is also obviously him (they both edit mail-order bride almost exclusively and Michael responds on the anon user's talk page). Michael's changes have been discussed on his talk page and elsewhere, and he seems unable to accept that most of his edits are violations of Wikipedia policy. After I warned him on about the inappropriateness of his edits on his talk page and drew his attention to a mediator's opinion Michael made a new series of edits, including restoring the disputed material, falsely claiming "the mediator is on my side". His latest preferred version of the article is worse than ever, with vast amounts of OR and POV material, including blaming "feminist groups who distort the truth" for a law and bringing up unsourced stories "which the media will not report". He hasn't discussed any of these most recent changes on the article talk page, but has referred to me as a "know-it-all" and "cyber thug" who is trying to "intimidate" him and others. I reverted the page and mentioned it again on his talk page but I suspect he will keep reverting to his favorite version. Perhaps I should have brought this to Requests for mediation instead, but I think this is a matter of multiple blatant violations of policy, not just an unpopular point of view that would need mediation between two sides. Editors (especially Gavin) have been trying to reason with Michael for months (he has also been warned about vandalism before, but removed the warnings from his talk page). What should be done next? --Grace 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Michael's (ostensible) point-of-view, but I think his repeated insertions are rather disruptive; in any event, he seems not to appreciate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:RS, and WP:V. In order that the community might express their views apropos of his conduct, and in order, perhaps, that he might be edified as to how properly to edit with respect to Mail-order bride and surrounding issues, in order that his sometimes valuable contributions might be used, you might do well to open a user-conduct RfC. In situations such as this, it is always advisable, IMHO, to seek community participation and evaluation; a consensus will likely develop for or against Michael's edits, and he (or those who think him to be editing wrongly) might better understand how best to edit. Joe 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediators from the Mediation Cabal have agreed that he's disruptive, but other than that consensus has been difficult to achieve, since only about 3 users have paid any attention to this article in the long-term (him and two who oppose him). He's certainly been informed of how his edits and conduct violate Wikipedia policy, but he seems to view these warnings as threats. I will be pursuing RfC. Thank you. --Grace 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of racism

User:Gemini531 is accusing me of racism here and here, stating that I am being "racial" (sic) and states that I "hate black people", which is untrue. She is claiming that I am refusing her permission to note that people on Wikipedia are African American. This is blatantly false, see here and here. I believe Gemini531 is making a personal attack on my character. In my opinion, it is probably not a good idea for me to even warn this user, but I would like someone to block or at least significantly warn this person. I do not like being accused of racism. --Yamla 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the user. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Her remark here definitely crossed the line into unacceptably uncivil discourse. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYamla&diff=56214291&oldid=56211803 I don't think we should take any further action besides the warning but this is something to keep an eye out for. Giovanni33 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Irredentist and inflammatory user pages

Please see User:Makedonas, User:Asteraki, User:Macedonia and User:Makedonia. I have asked them to bring their user pages in line with the policy at WP:USER. If they do not do so within a day I shall be removing the offending content. I can't see a problem with this, can anyone else? - FrancisTyers 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading again, perhaps I could have made that slightly less aggressive :) Basically, these pages are way out of line, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not mis-interpreting policy before I implement it. Thanks - FrancisTyers 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of the text on User:Macedonia's page is almost certainly a copyvio. Jkelly 23:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia - not carry on ethnic disputes by proxy. Totally inappropriate userspace use - deal with it as neccessary - but it all has to go. --Doc ^ask? 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

FrancisTyers, you are in the right. Their user pages aren't in good faith and just cause bad-blood among editors. Just make sure you gave them enough warning before you dealt with it yourself. --dcabrilo 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added User:Vergina and User:Makedonec to the merry band. - FrancisTyers 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree on this and thanks. Just give them a little more time, to do it themselves (a day is too-short a notice, check the frequency of their contribs). We've tolerated such content for too long now, not to give some more days to those guys to understand their error and correct themselves. Agree?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A day is much longer than I was going to give them. I see User:Makedonia has already started to attempt to bring his page in line. As for the others, I understand User:Makedonas has been conscripted, well I'm not going to wait around for the Greek army. How long would you suggest we leave it? Also you should realise that deletion is not a terminal affair, their pages can be restored if they agree to bring them in line. - FrancisTyers 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox ought to apply to user space as well as article space. --ajn (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Guinnog 11:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about reverting anytime, I was just trying to prevent irrational reactions that would make things worse, when they come back and see their pages blanked. As for User:Makedonas, his page used to be much milder, and I am sure he'll get in-line. People (ha! especially hot-blooded Greeks and Slavomacedonians) tend to over-react when they consider they've been victimised by what they interpret as use of excessive force. So, how about a week?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would help to be honest. I mean, giving them four more days, or six more days is not going to help if they don't come online. I mean, if they don't come online before the time is up they are just as likely to "go postal" when they do. Do you have any way of contacting them? - FrancisTyers 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No problem, I thought of something: When the time expires, I blank the Greeks and FlavrSavr blanks the Slavomacedonians. We also give them a nice message. Just say when is that, if FlavrSavr agrees too.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea. :) - FrancisTyers 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Four things though: 1.Who, 2.When (tomorrow noon [or 9:00 UTC] I'll be available), 3.FlavrSavr agrees (he is not online)?, 4.Hold the automatic/semi-automatic/manual-counter-vandal horses. Ok?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to my talk page. - FrancisTyers 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Bormalagurski to remove some similar stuff from his userpage (the "interesting articles" section). I hope he does this voluntarily. --ajn (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Would someone else like to deal with this?

I mentioned this above and got no response. If there is somewhere else I should go, please let me know where to take it.

See personal attacks [31], [32], [33]

See uninteligible English [34]

See user's other contributions ... basically, everything is along these lines [35]

BigDT 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing constructive coming from that account, but I still have to think that he's just doing what he thinks is best. I left a final warning on his talk page; let me or anyone else know if he continues behaving as such, as I think a block would then be in order. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you BigDT 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked him for a week after he posted a personal attack on my talk page, which attacked Protestants and others on Wikipedia. I checked his contribs since I posted a last warning and saw that he is still editing in the same fashion, deliberately inserting bias and attacking other religions and individuals. Anyone who finds the block inappropriate may feel free to lengthen, shorten, or remove it altogether. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian J. Bruns (Brian Bruns)

Someone just now deleted the Brian J. Bruns article without any discussion at all. He is the owner/webmaster of AHBL and SOSDG. Who deleted it and why? Why was there no discussion of AfD? --Chakabuh 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted by Phroziac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with the explanation "Inane junk to make brian look bad." I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but it looks like Bruns himself was editing the article and fighting with you over the content. I'll invite Phroziac to explain the deletion here. Postdlf 02:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

18:53, May 31, 2006 Phroziac deleted "Brian J. Bruns" (Inane junk to make brian look bad) You might want to discuss it with him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't inane junk and I uploaded a copy of page one of the extended TRO on Bruns: Image:Fss vs bruns tro ext1.gif --Chakabuh 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the TRO that was dismissed when the rest of the case was? Perhaps if you actually read the court documents, you'd not be trying to tell me about a case that you have no involvement with. Brian 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that indicates the TRO was dismissed. Please direct me to the document that shows this. --Chakabuh 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the TRO is disrelated to Bruns' indictments. Bruns had 2 seperate indictments, per a plea agreement, one was dismissed, the other was not. See Image:Brian Bruns Indictment 2423-02.jpg, Image:Brian Bruns DA Press Release.jpg, and Image:Brian Bruns re Indt 2423-02 and 1577 02.jpg --Chakabuh 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A blind man would see they are completely separate from one another. The incidents happened 3 years apart. Either way, between lying through omission, and twisting the truth to your own vision, you've made yourself look like a sockpuppet for some really nutty kooks. Brian 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, your believe your rhetoric is against wikipedia rules about getting along with other contributors. There is no lying through ommission, only confusion on my part and the other contributors parts in trying to understand these court papers. --Chakabuh 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I said that the cases are seperate because some of the other editors seemed to think there was only one (the case filed by Scoville). We can now see you were indicted for hacking and software piracy both of which are felonies. The hacking crime was dismissed, I don't know why, but others say because you made a plea agreement and we have nothing to see so we can't make a determination here in Wikipedia until we get documentation. But the software piracy was not dismissed. Calling you a felon is not an attack or libel. It is true and cited to a reliable reference: a court doc from the court in New York Image:Brian Bruns Indictment 2423-02.jpg. --Chakabuh 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Phroziac mistook a vandalized revision for an attack page. Ashibaka tock 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only vandalism I saw was the blanking by Bruns. --Chakabuh 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That must be what happened. I know Brian, and he was trying to explain the situation to me, and I was in a rush, saw the page, and thought he meant it was an attack page. I was in a rush to go to bed early (we had a huge run with 600,000 impressions the next day), and he wanted me to do something about it. I really don't think he's notable though, AFD perhaps? --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Constantly blanking and placing speedy delete tag

Brian Bruns keeps editing his own article, blanking and adding sd tag. --Chakabuh 02:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I protected the article, it's a content dispute (although I don't see what the big deal is with the deletions and all). Please use the talk page. Ashibaka tock 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In this rare case, the editor who's editing an article about himself appears to be in the right. It strongly appears that a previous editor was trying to use the article to forward a factually erroneous claim -- namely, that Bruns is currently under a court's restraining order. Removing an erroneous claim is simply correct.

Moreover, considering the history of the case (with which I have some small passing familiarity) it seems likely that the article was created either as an attack or a prank. The first revision describes Bruns as leet; other early revisions claim Bruns to be a convict, and to be under a restraining order. Neither of these claims are substantiated.

It is far better that Brian Bruns ask for the article to be removed (by proposing it for deletion) than that he, e.g., go to the press and denounce Wikipedia for libelling him, the way that some people have. :) --FOo 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, FOo, the claims are susbtantiated. There is no libel, I uploaded scans of the court documents, see above. And the article is protected in a state where none of this is mentioned. If Bruns goes to the media denouncing Wikipedia for libelling him, it will only make him look silly since we have court citations to back up what we write. --Chakabuh 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OH :) The TRO is baby stuff. The indictments are more interesting. Foo, inform yourself before attempting to make "factual" statements please. --Chakabuh 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That's the TRO that was vacated when the case was thrown out of court, right? My statement stands; you're using Wikipedia to attack someone. That's simply not allowed here. --FOo 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you still dont get it? Forget the TRO, the indictment over hacking are more interesting and I've uploaded scans of the references. No one is attacking anyone, just getting knowledge into Wikipedia. Bruns doesn't seem to like that. You really shouldn't be supporting vandalism and "autobiography". --Chakabuh 08:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An indictment that was dismissed, and far from notable (unless suddenly wikipedia decides to document every indictment/dismissal against every person in the world). An indictment that many kooks try to say is a conviction in an effort to discredit and ruin my reputation. I corrected your statement in the article about me before wiping it out completely in the hope that you'd see your mistake. However, you didn't get the clue, and kept stating as a fact that I was convicted of hacking even when the paperwork involving the case was right in front of your face and said contradicted your assertations. Brian 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the hacking charge was dismissed, but you still were indicted, just not convicted. It is notable, so notable that even the DA's office made a press release about it. Again, your rhetoric about "kooks" is not appropriate in Wikipedia. It is true that they are incorrect in saying you were convicted, as you were not convicted and the charge was apparently dropped. However, you ommitted the fact that you were convicted of software piracy which is a class E felony. I and the others have made mistakes because there is some confusing information about your cases and Scoville and Schwarz haven't presented all relevant documentation. But your person attacks on me are unacceptable. Yes I made some mistakes and I have corrected my data. Now stop posting ad hominem and lets get the correct information into your article. And if you have anything positive about you, please give us references so that we can also write about it. --Chakabuh 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are very few people out there that are qualified to write a bio on me besides myself. There's been a few news articles that were done with quotes from me (mortgage lender newsletter, lightreading article on WASTE/P2P, and a few smaller things), but I don't think that or my association with the SOSDG/AHBL makes me notable and worth anything beyond my personal user page. Brian 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, autobiographies are severely frowned upon in Wikipedia. But please give us those references so we can add mention of them to your article. I don't want you looking only like a software pirate because you are a young person obviously with a lot of talent. NPOV. --Chakabuh 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no further interest in discussing things with you. It's painfully obvious that you are doing this to instigate problems. Hell, it looks an awful lot like you're obsessed with me. I'm surprised you're not stalking me in real life, considering how deep your obsession is getting.

I would like to request that an admin rereview my request to delete the article and associated talk page.

Chakabuh has not shown that I am a notable person, other then in his mind and the minds of other people obsessed with me. Being convicted of software piracy is anything but notable - I do not see every other software pirate out there being given wikipedia pages. He has also shown that he is incapible of doing proper research to back his statements, as seen by his constant insistance of me being convicted of something I was not even after being corrected multiple times.

If Chakabuh is really interested in my accomplishments, he should go research that information, then come back and recreate the article when he has valid information which makes me a notable person. Brian 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai's threat

Please review this threat made against me by User:Mikkalai: [36]. Just forewarning that I will consider any actions he takes against me as wikistalking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, tremble. Very smart of you to know policies that work in your favor. How about following them in applying to other people when executing your admin rights? `'mikka (t) 03:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rogue admin sounds about right though I hadn't heard this term in reference to Zoe before, SqueakBox 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoe doesn't contribute to Wiki with anything. Their entire talkpage is about people who complain to them about removing material from articles. This user doesn't know how to add footnotes to articles, but wants to make them mandatory. This user blocked me for asking a relevant question on ANI about the Wiki policy; they called it trolling and being disruptive. --Candide, or Optimism 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, that was no threat. There is nothing wrong with admins keeping an eye on other admins, it ensures the accountability of administrative actions. And, remember, also, that Wikipedia has to be transparent, and that any reasons for blocking must be clearly stated and the user has to be warned beforehand. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has had several warnings and knows full well why he was blocked, his claims of innocence notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct by admin InShaneee

Pantherarosa was listed on WP:PAIN for making personal attacks against User:Melca. [37] When I looked into the situation, I noticed that Pantherarosa had been removing warnings. I restored the warnings and add the do not remove warnings tag to his/her talk page. This caused Pantherarosa to start attacking me. I elevated the NPA warnings but (s)he continued. I continued to elevate the warnings but to no avail. I became annoyed and made one incivil remark to Pantherarosa. InShaneee posted a NPA warning on my page. [38] When I contacted him about it [39], he admitted that my comments were not personal attacks, but still refused to change the warning. He also said that all of my edits violated WP:CIVIL [40], when in fact there was only one. [41] When I asked him for an explaination[42], he pretty much resorted to "it is because I say so". [43] [44] [45] [46]

Secondly, one of my comments was incivil towards Pantherarosa who had repeatedly made personal attacks against me. Wikipedia's policies go for all users regardless of circumstances, so an incivil warning should stay on my talk page. However, because I had made one incivil comment toward the other user, InShaneee refused to block Pantherarosa. Not only is this a double standard, but I was not even the one who had the brunt of Pantherarosa's attacks. As another user said on InShanne's talk page: Obviously you aren't interested to even consider that your action isen't the proper conduct of an experienced administrator. I agree with this completely, and to add on that InShaneee is refusing to punish Pantherarosa to make a point to me, even though I wasn't even the person Pantherarosa was originally attacking. The full discussion on WP:PAIN is here: Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard#Pantherarosa (talk • contribs) Paul Cyr 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator, User:InShaneee exhibited a double standard when blocking me. He blocked me and stated on my Talk Page, "You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. If a user comes here, to an encyclopedia, asking for information, it shouldn't be difficult to point him to such info". However, I spelled out for him expilicity how the answers I gave, difference, were w links that are sometimes in and sometimes out of the article, Scientology but are the most direct possible answers to the user's specific question. I also spelled out to him why the link answering, "when did the present Church of Scientology start?" is not present in the article today. InShaneee came up with the term, "linkspamming" to describe his blocking me for that answer. Then, in discussion on my talk page, User:InShaneee he made me a promise. "Fax us over some of those high-level OTs and I PROMISE you it'll get fixed up." [47] Left unsaid was "I'm with the Cartel, you should betray Scientology and Fax "us" confidential documents." Whether he is aware or not, such an invitation is unethical to make and would be unethical to fulfill.Terryeo 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both users above. User:InShaneee's conduct is not proper for an administrator. There's more to being an admin than giving warnings out like candies and refusing to discuss related issues. User:InShaneee was adamant that accusing someone of trolling even if they are a troll constitutes as a personal attack, when I displayed that he himself has accused other users of trolling and that it's hypocritical he blocked me for 24 hours in retaliation.--Eupator 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Being unpopular is usually par for the course for admins, especially those who have SP type roles. I personally think that InShaneee is a good lad, a bit of a laugh. Thanks. Wallie 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe our statements don't address his sense of humor, but address his judgement. Though his sense of humor would be a subject that might be explored. :) Terryeo 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what's even funnier? I was warned by InShaneee for making a similar remark as Wallie just did. I imagine that if you weren't defending him, he'd give you a civility warning. In fact, mocking a complaint is incivil, so why don't you deserve a warning? Paul Cyr 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I realise you were hurt at my comments. I have said sorry on your talk page. I did not want to get in the way of your compliant. Wallie 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with being called "a good lad". :) --InShaneee 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee is quite right in saying that calling someone a troll is a personal attack even if they are trolling. Just like calling an obese person "fat" is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with cerebral palsy a "spastic" is a personal attack. Just like telling an ugly person they're ugly is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with low intelligence "dumb" is a personal attack. I could go on but I think you get the message. The accuracy or otherwise of a personal attack does not make it any less a personal attack. In fact, usually the accurate personal attacks are the most hurtful. Snottygobble 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not always. WP:NPA is pretty clear that the comment may be considered personal attack "if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." If it is a relevant and fundamentally informative observation, then by definition it's not a personal attack. FeloniousMonk 05:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling anyone a troll is always wrong. It is a device to get your own way when editing articles. Wallie 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Snottygobble on this. There is an additional argument here about not feeding trolls; calling a troll a troll is an indication to them that they have provoked an emotional response, and as such is an incitement to troll some more. Better just to leave the default messages. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, can you provide diffs of where InShaneee accused others of trolling? I just want to make sure all claims are linked to with diffs so that we don't have people accusing others of lying. Paul Cyr 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just look at his contributions, you will find many instances such as this [48], I merely pointed out that it's hypocritical for which he blocked me for 24 hours.--Eupator 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong. Will (^E_@) T 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not going to engage in this, partly because I qualified InShaneee warning against me, Eupator and Paul Cyr as a lack of experience from this administrators part, but to my surprise having seen him/her sign a disput which I don't ever remember having seen him/her even being engaged in or involved in or having even edited those articles or their talk page [49], I had to conclude that this was a retaliation to my remark about him/her [50], [51]. Administrators should not act like this, retaliating against a user like this reflect immaturity. Also, I am troubled that some veterans find it nothing wrong about InShaneee block against Eupator. While in practice there is nothing wrong in blocking someone for not respecting a guideline or policy, that the principal alleged victim here of Eupator remark was InShaneee, and to the measure that he/she took the decision to block him, I believe, InShaneee made this something personal and obviously reflect unexperience and somehow a lack of judgement. Also, that Lutherian is a troll, I will repeat this and should never be blocked for this. A checkusers has reflected that he is indeed a troll, he has done nothing in Wikipedia other then trolling and slandering members. Insteed of provoquing veterans of Wikipedia by giving warnings because those veterans have retaliated against a troll, he/she should work to prevent such things to happen. Fad (ix) 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is no different than calling someone a vandal - the characterization should only be made when assuming good faith is no longer reasonable. Otherwise, it shouldn't be considered a personal attack, as it indicates specifically whether an editor's edits primarily disrupt Wikipedia; it doesn't address any personal trait. HKT 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I think in most cases there are far better alternatives to using such terms. If a troll needs to be dealt with, he should certainly be dealt with, but I just don't see how saying "You're a troll" solves anything in most cases. --InShaneee 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

True. When it comes to warning others, though, "Watch out - he's a troll" is easier than "A high percentage of his edits exhibit trolling, and this trolling is further reflected in his edit summaries and talk page remarks." Nevertheless, I think that "You're a troll" would violate WP:CIVIL rather than WP:NPA. HKT^Talk 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been extensive about how to address a user, specifically the use of the term "troll", "vandal", characterization of individual editors, etc. Those were not the issues which brought this discussion into existence. InShaneee's (viewed by some editors) inappropriate blocking, inappropriate administrator behaviour was what brought this "good lad's" actions into discussion. Not the words he used, but the actions he took. To revolve around the words used denies the central issue which was the actions he took and the basis he took those actions on. Terryeo 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While were discussing this, these edits were given before and shortly after Pantherarosa received the final warning tag: edit summary [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] blatant attack [57] and yesturday she made two more personal attacks as shown here: [58] and [59]. Specifically, It cannot be tolerated that a kid playing snitch spreads unproven rumors at his fancy! and I do not wish to have to deal with trolling and bad faith slanderous kids. Pantherarosa has already received countless warnings and I believe has begun using sockpuppets to attack me as well. Could someone please block him/her? Given the edit histories of the suspected sockpuppets, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are Pantherarosa's. Therefore I ask that they be blocked indefinately, and the actions by Pantherarosa factored into the action to be taken. Paul Cyr 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I having hallucinations or am I really being trolled by (Personal attack removed) making bad faith, slanderous assertions, aimed at smearing my (and others') name?? Would all that be in anybody's interest, i wonder? In case I am not having hallucinations, should this (Personal attack removed) individual be tolerated here, playing all sorts of pranks and wasting everybody's precious time? (Personal attack removed) In case this theorem applies, i wonder how he could be helped, maybe by keeping his access blocked for a while, to to give him time for reflection; perhaps, as a consequence, leading to the possible revelation that he actually does not contribute a thing to this ENCYCLOPAEDIA but merely exhausts editors and admins with futile and bothersome trolling? His contributions log, in any event, is conspicuous with similar actions and I have chosen to observe it on my watch list. Pantherarosa 10:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks, the diff is here: [60] Paul Cyr 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked by this user while having a dispute with him, an obvious violation of WP:BP, this user has abused his powers numerous times and is out of hand , he thinks it is ok to call anyone and everyone a troll. I think something should be done about him.--GorillazFan Adam 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been waiting over a week for a response! Could admins please take action? Paul Cyr 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

After the edit I had made yesterday on this board InShanee maliscosly blocked me, I find this to be an abuse of admin powers and ask that an honest admin please unblock me.--User:GorillazFanAdam

More bad choices of usernames

• 21:15, May 31, 2006 Hamburgers on Holy Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:19, May 31, 2006 IEatChildren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also, Wikpedia (talk · contribs) has good intentions according to his contribs, but is his username OK?-- The ikiroid  03:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First two indef-blocked. Looking into Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just drop User:Wikpedia a friendly note, no need to angrily blocked. Actually, in retrospect, probably what I should have done before blocking IEatChildren. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Note dropped. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I eat children, too, but I don't brag about it. ;-) I corrected the username in AmiDaniel's post. -- Kjkolb 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ass Vandal

• 21:25, May 31, 2006 Praties in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:25, May 31, 2006 Elms in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:25, May 31, 2006 Jars in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:24, May 31, 2006 Steam in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:24, May 31, 2006 Cream in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:21, May 31, 2006 Berries in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:21, May 31, 2006 Field in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:21, May 31, 2006 Buns in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:20, May 31, 2006 Fire in your ass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a lot more where that came from. We have a new vandal.-- The ikiroid  03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

HappyCamper and I tag-teamed a couple, but I think we got 'em all. Bring on the rest! AmiDaniel (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don;t know if "tag-team" is the right word in this situation if you know what I means.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article for Praties... :| Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they're all gone. What a weird person.-- The ikiroid  13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You know you people really need to stop naming these vandals--205.188.116.65 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm i think i agree. I checked all the contributions, and it turns out that none of these editors has yet made a contribution... but they are vandals? Maybe you could say user with superflous username or something like that but yes i hesitate to call it vandalism until something has actually been vandalised. THE KING 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering where those creamy steamed berries in jars came from. -- Kjkolb 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Just to let you know the following page is either a false entry or subject of vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

Fixed. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is -Ril- back?

Can someone please have a look at the newly-created account -shill- (talk · contribs). I'm about to have lunch now, but the ~~~~ signature in this message makes me suspicious. AnnH ♫ 11:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as sock or imitation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of TfD: Deleted Template:User no notability template.

Some admin deleted this template without closing the TfD debate going on about it. The TfD had a majority voting for keep, with one "Kill with Fire". Isn't 6/1 basically consensus, and if it isnt, doesn't non-consesnsus default to Keep? If possible, please undelete Template:User_no_notability or at least get me the code so I can put it back on my userpage. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• It got T1-ed. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• It doesn't really fit the criteria, and why didn't they try to post something on the ongong TfD? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just another FYI

Is this name kosher?

• 00:44, June 1, 2006 Admin@samriposta.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Don't see why not. The fact it's an email address means it's very unlikely that anyone will mistake him/her for a Wikipedia admin. Suspect this user won't have many useful contributions to make though. The Land 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Openland (talk · contribs) has created about 4 or 5 new accounts.-- The ikiroid  13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us what they are? The Land 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See the logs. --Cyde↔Weys 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Stupidkit

Stupidkit (talk · contribs · count) This user is proposing the deletion of random notable articles for reasons of their chosing. Some of these are because they dislike the character. Yanksox 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned. --Golbez 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Stupidity-only account. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

Frater FiatLux

I'm having trouble getting the Golden Dawn tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page unprotected. We have reached a semi-consensus and Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) is misunderstanding the situation. I have also filed a complaint of his violation of Incivility at Wikipedia:Civility_noticeboard#Frater_FiatLux. Can anyone please explaine to me how to get this article unprotected? Zos 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This infra user “Zos”, has harassed and beleaguered all my comments to the talk area discussion and has taken it upon himself to frequently misrepresent out of context every posting I have made. I want to place my own compliant about this unscrupulous user, can someone send me details please.

The reason for this: “Zos”, is in cahoots with user “JMAX555”, that has instigated this most recent disputation due to performing defamatory and libellous edits on the Golden Dawn article. To which I have rightfully contested and made a stand against.

I reiterate that this user “Zos”, wants me to be removed from the board as I am the only person rivalling his crusade to deform the present, and rightfully protected article, in to “JMAX555” libellous version. The motives of both these wikipedia users is that they’re both part of the same order, that has a vested interest in propagating anti HOGD/A+O, propaganda and distorting the facts.

I have submitted an array of evidence such as public domain court affidavits from the original source with comprehensive explanations on why the present un tampered version of the article is the correct, verifiable, and most neutral. Please see the discussion page for the Golden Dawn article in question, where I have fully validated all of my comments comprehensively.

Furthermore, this user “Zos” has in an unprincipled manner made an advertisement on the discussion page to announce and invite people to join in, to attempt to kick me off the discussion forum for the Golden Dawn article. The reason being “Zos” and “JMAX555” have no answers to my postings and are simply seeking now in a last attempt at trying to silence me. Solely so that they can carry onto try and approve a defamatory version of the article

I have adhered with recitude to Wikipedia's protocols fully throughout.

Frater FiatLux 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My take on this is that as soon as the article is unprotected, the edit war will begin again. Jkelly 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear J Kelly:

Well to make a first step: If JMAX555 would agree not to make unannounced, clearly libellous and defamatory changes to the HOGD/A+O article entry, then I would be happy. Furthermore, I wouldn’t instigate any editing war if this were to be agreed. But JMAX555 has changed the HOGD/A+O article entry in a defamatory tone, when he is no part of that organisation and a leader of the opposition that is currently in litigation. This is why I have protested. If he stops and leaves the HOGD/A+O entry alone, as it has nothing to do with him, other than change it in an biased unprincipled manner; then that would be a start for me.

Frater FiatLux 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

JKelly: I agree. If Fiat Lux would care to make his "first step" proposal to the Discussion section, I will respond. - JMax555 19:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow Users, this is a section of a reply that I made to "JMAX555" on the Golden Dawn article talk page. I include it here as it address "JMAX555" supra comment.

You'll have to wait for my offer, as I will have to find the relevant page, or method in which to submit it, and furthermore, I‘m not on the Internet, permanently, twenty-four hours a day either. I‘ll submit the compromise in due course, very shortly, when I know where and who to make it to. I do not feel this is unreasonable, so there’s no value in being disingenuous towards me taking time to make my submition of the compromise. I can assure the mediator that I will definitely be producing this compromise very shortly.

In the meanwhile, I feel, all messages should be suspended to the GD article talk page, and no more past disputation pages should be pasted to the present disputation, as it will only confuse matters. The mediator will need time to go through the information on this page, it is only now fair to the mediator to leave further pointless disputing and actually put all efforts into compromise and sorting this out with the mediator directly. I will find out exactly who and where to serve my "first step" as you put it.

Frater FiatLux 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Adrian Bunk

This user is going through and mass-prodding/AFDing articles for having no inbound wikilinks or (in his opinion) for having been tagged for cleanup for too long. It's highly disruptive, and the vast majority of these pages seem to be useful and perfectly viable pages that (big surprise) just need to be cleaned up and expanded. The whole mess feels like a WP:POINT violation, and I'm mentioning it here in the hope that someone with more authority than me can call time out and figure out a better course of action. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A glance at his contributions show that his 'mass-prodding' seems to be mainly articles by Edbon3000, who periodically creates dozens of articles at a time about the Filipino film industry which have no verification whatsoever and have frequently been deleted. He has never deigned to communicate with editors despite entreaties on his talk page. The one article I remember him creating that was actually on a notable and verifiable person, Rogelio De La Rosa, was actually inaccurate from start to finish and had to be completely rewritten (by me, in fact). See User:Proto/actors for more on this.

Nominating Edbon's articles for deletion is not only not WP:POINT but probably the best course of action. Has he prodded any articles, Steak, that you can find reliable sources for? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The first one that caught my eye was Manning Island (Australian gov't source on article page), but here are a few others: Luis Rodriguez Varela(books), Jacobo Fijman(books), and Leiner Health Products(coverage of one recent deal, huge accident at one of their plants, 23rd-largest private company in Los Angeles, $600M in annual revenue, top American manufacturer of nutritional supplements as of 1997, top US manufacturer of nutritional herbs, etc.). There are probably others (in fairness, there are some real clunkers, too, and all the Filipino stuff looks more reasonable now that I know the context). We're interacting in a civil fashion on his talk page, so this might resolve itself without fisticuffs or explosions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Category: XX of Oz

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but User:Conradege is adding a lot of categories about the television programme Oz. Old categories about the show had been deleted, they are currently up for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Oz categories . Maybe someone could have a look? Inner Earth 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So far he hasn't added back any categories that were previously deleted. He's separating out the characters on the show by position (guard, prisoner, and visitor) rather than by gang. I don't think this qualifies as an incident. --Cyde↔Weys 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sveasoft vandal

A vandal has been using numerous open proxies today to make advertising-POV edits on Sveasoft [61] and WRT54G [62], as well as link spam on Talk:Main Page [63] and good old-fashioned vandalism [64] against the users that try to stop it (that link goes to Last Measure), as well as revealing of what purports to personal information (been deleting those diffs as I come across them, so can't provide them). I've been blocking each open proxy as it comes (they helpfully say "[This IP address] is running an open proxy" on the talk page - as each IP has never had any contributions but the vandal's, I see no reason not to take them at their word), and I've just semi-protected Sveasoft and WRT54G. User:AndrewBourke is clearly the same person. Please be on the look out for more. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence is at User_talk:62.20.102.130#Ladies_and_Gentlemen_of_the_Jury.... Just follow the links to see the blatant harassment and vandalism from James Ewing. I say this is James because he's been rumored to be real big on harassing disgruntled ex-customers. But what are the odds of a random vandal posting from the subnet he personally owns?

inetnum:   62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255 
netname:   SE-SVEASOFT 
descr:     Sveasoft Utveckling AB 
descr:     Wireless ISP 
country:   se 
admin-c:   JE730-RIPE 
tech-c:    JE730-RIPE 
status:    ASSIGNED PA 
mnt-by:    TELIANET-LIR 
source:    RIPE # Filtered 

person:    James Ewing 
address:   Sveasoft AB 
address:   Myrvagen 3 
address:   13463 Ingaro 
address:   se 
phone:     +46702704417 
e-mail:    james.ewing@sveasoft.com
nic-hdl:   JE730-RIPE 
mnt-by:    TELIANET-LIR 
source:    RIPE # Filtered

An awful coincidence, no? This is why I'm recommending an edit block on 62.20.102.128/25, even though James probably reads text files on "how 2 h4x0r" by (ab)using open proxies. --Tokachu 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If Sveasoft owns the subnet, block the whole damn thing. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:68.112.25.197

68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made numerous personal attacks on me as well as User:Abu badali, such as here, here, here, and here (as well as other edits in the users contributions). This seems to stem from the fact that I have removed images from articles (that this user may have uploaded as User:Padgett22, User:Onlyslighted, and/or User:Steph11 ... I am not sure how to report/check sockpuppets, though User:Meegs seems to think Padget22 and Onlyslighted are one in the same) that are either unsourced or images that are not being used in fair use (most particularly when the image is from a DVD cover and is being used illustrate the person, not the creative property). Also, last evening/this morning, he vandlised my user page. While these actions do not deter my Wikipedia resolve in anyway, I felt that it might be best to bring this up here and let the possible appropriate people look into these actions. Thanks. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Previous (and possibly) relevant ANI discussions can be found here and here as they deal with the same actions and possibly the same user.

Yikes, this user's edits almost consistently consist of personal attacks and a very hostile manner. I would recommend an immediate block. Cowman109^Talk 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism from previously blocked IP address

This previously blocked publically used IP address 199.216.252.3 has resumed vandalizing pages. See here. Flibirigit 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism notices belong on WP:AIV. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IP 216.144.171.168 Block Request

As outlined on their talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.144.171.168), this user has a history of malicious edits. His most recent vandalisms have been to remove the entire Slipknot and Fallout Boy articles to be replaced with "this band really sucks" and "hi". Personal feelings about those bands aside, he has contributed nothing of value and seems to exist solely to delete the work of others.

Thankyou; however this sort of thing should preferably go on WP:AIAV. The Land 21:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

whatever Platypus it is this time...

Could you check the doings of Special:Contributions/Duck-billed_platypus, because I just realized that the one had moved a bunch of articles to non-NC-conforming names just after I moved them to NC-directed places. I have a suspicion that this is a sleeper account... Marrtel 20:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, I blocked indefinitely for not making any useful contributions. Ashibaka tock 20:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Doom127 block or warning request

I'd like to report that User:Doom127 has repeatedly re-added content to the Wii article that myself and several other regular Wii article editors feel is POV. Further, when I posted a comment on his talk page explaining the reasoning for not including the content: User_talk:Doom127, he not only deleted it, but labeled his reason for deleting my comments as vandalism. Upon reverting this change and posting a warning about deleting legitimate comments, he re-deleted my original and new comments, as well as the warning templates. Danny 00:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One word- bull crap. This VANDAL not only has blanked out legitimate AND SOURCED additions to the Wii article, he has repeatedly attacked me, harassed me, on my talk page (which I, in my legitimate capacity, have removed, as all his contributions to it have been harassing personal attacks and vandalism), and he's brought in meatpuppets to the talk page in order to "agree" with him. He's put comments down there such as "You are only here to attack the Wii!", called my legitimate and sourced additions "vandalism", blanked out sections of the page (which IS vandalism), and now he comes here to waste your time. Anyone who's checked my edit history knows that POV is quite important to me- I've never "attacked" neither the Wii, nor the PS3 or whatever. I recommend THAT user recieve a block- I don't deserve the treatment that him and his meatpuppets have given me, given the fact that I've spent a significant amount of time improving numerous Nintendo related articles with the attempt to keep out POV. -- Daniel Davis 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This only further proves that something is strange about this user's behavior. Other users agreed with me on their own, I in no way rallied them or am faking a consensus as he has implied. This user cannot accept that several users besides me disagreed with his basis for adding certain content. Check my contributions and you will see I have never intentionally vandalized an article, so calling me a vandal for the umpteenth time is in fact a violation of policy as I understand it. Please note per his talk page history that I originally left one comment about the reason for removing the one section he re-added and did not add warnings until after he removed my comment. He has once again removed those legitimate warnings from his talk page. And the wording of his comments has made it appear he wants to add a criticism section to the Wii page for the sole reason of doing so, not to enhance its quality. Check Talk:Wii, I am not the only user who thinks so. Danny 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you are vandalizing, from your contributions. Stop the flamewar or I'll warn you both. WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. Take a chill pill, or go seek assistance from the WP:MEDCAB. Right now, neither of you can expect action against the other. Jesus. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask in all seriousness, isn't removing legitimate comments from your talk page an act of vandalism? Danny 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect Avillia and trust his judgement. I accept his findings. -- Daniel Davis 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great and all, except, I would prefer to hear comment on our "behavior" from an actual admin before I consider this matter settled. Accusing someone of vandalism all the while committing seemingly act of vandalism yourself seems pretty serious to me, if I'm wrong I can accept that. But a random user profanely telling me to take a chill pill isn't going to cut it. Danny 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, YOU WERE vandalising! You harassed me ON MY TALK PAGE while simultaneously ripping out relevant information from the Wii, information that more than one *respected* (as opposed to Meatpuppet low-edit users) had stated should be in the article. Now Avilla has politely asked you to knock off your behavior, and I agreed that perpetuating the argument on Wii was without merit. But if you're going to keep up this junk, let it be on your own head. -- Daniel Davis 05:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Avillia may not be an administrator, but given that both of you seem to think that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, and you're having some sort of dispute that has you quarreling on WP:AN/I about who is "vandalising" by making edits the other doesn't like, the suggest to look at mediation doesn't seem amiss. Jkelly 06:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All I want is for him to leave my talk page alone. Is that too much to ask? -- Daniel Davis 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I originally left one single comment, based on several other user's consensus for his own information regarding the content removal. He accused me personally of being a "vandal" simply for commenting on his talk page. That wasn't right no matter how he wants to twist it. If we really need to take this to mediation, fine, but I still feel his actions were unwarranted and mis-directed toward me as I was not the only user who disagreed with him. In fact, forget it, I'll resolve this now: next time I won't bother keeping him up-to-date. Danny 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How about you commit to letting other users warn Dannybu2001 about any vandalism going forward, and Dannybu2001 commits to letting you blank his complaints about your calling his edits vandalism on your talk? Jkelly 06:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Danny 06:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note -- There is no need to seek "comment on behavior from an actual admin." Wikipedia administrators are not charged with adjudicating disputes between users. There are Wikipedia:dispute resolution procedures for that. Admins are trusted with a few more technical tools than other editors, but they are not judges set over other editors. --FOo 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat

User:Merecat has remained blocked for 15 days, by an Admin (User:Katefan0) who has retired from Wikipedia. Could a new Admin take a look and please release the block so that Merecat can communicate on Wikipedia? I miss my friend Merecat, and hope that you will conclude the matter and consider his blocked period as "time-served." Cheers. Morton devonshire 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence looks pretty convincing that Merecat is a sockpuppet of Rex071404, who was blocked for sockpuppeting in order to avoid ArbCom sanctions. I would support keeping the block. Ral315 (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and don't know whether he is or isn't a sock -- I'll take your word for it. My question is different: assuming that he is a sock, he's been blocked for more than 15 days, isn't that an appropriate period of punishment for his violation? Morton devonshire 02:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, sockpuppets of blocked users are blocked indefinately. You're not allowed to use sockpuppet accounts in order to evade a block. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Essjay. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear from the above discussion who is the sock and who is the original user. Is there a non-sock user who has been blocked for the length of their dictated time? -lethe ^{talk +} 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rex071404 and User:Merecat are both indef blocked as sockpuppets of each other. That's kind of silly, I would think. Rex071404 is a user with a long history, however I cannot find any ArbCom decisions banning him from Wikipedia after October 2005. Anyone familiar with this matter? Conscious 09:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See this and this for more information (not about the banning). -- Kjkolb 10:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Rex was blocked by Cyde as a sockpuppet of Merecat. If I understand the situation correctly, Rex (the master account) should be unblocked and allowed to edit as long as he obeys the restrictions of his Arbcom case. Thatcher131 12:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this, someone obviously made a mistake in stating rex was a sockpuppet of merecat when rex was the earlier created account. It seems as though Rex should be unbanned if he is, since they cannot be sockpuppets of eachother. --zero faults talk 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Defending another user is of course very friendly and commendable, however the editors campaigning for an unblock fail to acknowledge that Merecat/Rex was blocked for disruptive editing also. The fact that numerous IP addresses (sockpuppets?) have appeared that 1 ask to unblock Merecat/Rex, 2 use uncivil language, 3 one of which has filed two bogus RFCU against opponents of Merecat/Rex, makes me anxious about allowing this user back without sufficient remedies, i.e. ArbCom. Further, I would like to point out that the recent RfAr against this user was rejected on the grounds of him already being blocked. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [65]

Considering you asked for a Checkuser on two users who simply disagreed with your views I think your above comment is at odds with your own actions. "Keep it NPOV" is not really a valid reason to call for a checkuser is it now? the users you are asking for the checkuser on do have one thing in common, they have opposed you and Mr. Tibbs opinion ... --zero faults talk 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask this uninvolved -yet mysteriously interested, knowledgable, and now using Merecat in his sig(?!)- user to retract the false assertion that I filed a checkuser. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are telling the admins to remove this Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat since someone falsely filed this under your name? You are not listed there adding 2 more ip's to the check user? IP that are in two different states? --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Mr. Tibbs (talk · contribs) filed the request I hardly am capable of retracting it. You however, still need to retract the false allegation against me! As to the IP, if you look at the Rex/Texan categories you will find that these new IP addresses are comparable to the already known socks.Thank you for retracting. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Under what comparison guidelines? ahh yes there support for merecat. Also you get no apologies, you obviously added on 2 IP's therefore initiating a RFCU against them. Thank you Nescio for accusing me of also being merecat and proving how horribly misguided these RFCU's are and this attacking on anyone who supports rex/merecat. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at ALL the IP's involved? Second, you misrepresent the facts. The IP filed RFCU against me, and it was editing in a similar fashion as your hero. Therefore I deduced this is in line with known behaviour and makes it likely the IP's are socks too. Another misrepresentation is that I never accused you of anything. I did however observe that your obsessive defense of a known disruptive sock (whom you do not know!?), your use of Merecat/sockpuppet in your sig, and the continuous attacks against opponents of your hero is at best an unfortunate route to take. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the IP's you have accused, now present your evidence, how do the two you filed RFCU against connect? How does the above link conform to merecat? They are on different ISP's, different states. As for you accusing me:

"You are very good. Misrepresenting the facts, leaving out relevant information. Indeed a worhty sockpuppet. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"

"Smoke and mirrors Merecat.:) (In case you missed it, this is a joke)"

Located User_talk:Zer0faults#Merecat, the final one was obviously not a joke. Perhaps you feel you can be offensive to someone and just add "this is a joke" to the end of the sentence, after just two lines up calling them a sockpuppet. So what links these users that are not on the same ISP, not in the same state? other then there support for merecat, which I also support and now have been accused by Ryan Freisling of being merecat also. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the real situation here is that Rex was banned and the ban has since been extended for his sockpuppeting as Merecat in an attempt to evade the ban. Merecat's edits have been highly tendentious and POV peddling. He has been insulting to other editors and made personal attacks. Regardless he does not seem to be modifying his behavior in response to the previous bans, they should continue until there is a likelihood that he will. --Gorgonzilla 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long is this ban? You say he doesn't seem to be modifying his behavior, but I do not see proof of that. Both merecat and rex cant be sockpuppets of eachother so one of them should have time limit to when they can return. Seeing as it seems rex would be the official user, when is his ban up? As for his POV peddling if you look at the articles he edits, everyone is POV peddling. For instance in the Iraq war article users are insisting only WMD's get mentioned and no other reason for going to war, undue weight? Anyway I think if Rex is banned then there should be a duration taht was issued or extended to, so what was that duration? --zero faults talk 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've instead blocked Rex indefinitely again, this time under a more accurate reasoning- for sockpuppeting to evade an ArbCom ban, and general disruption. If any administrator disagrees, let me know, and I'll unblock, but Rex has been disruptive for a long time, and I don't feel his continued presence will in any way help build the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that Rex071404 and Merecat are banned forever from editing Wikipedia? Morton devonshire 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It means just that. Don't forget they're the same person. Conscious 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can appeal a community ban to ArbCom. Thatcher131 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm definetely not a fan of Rex, especially since his recent sockpuppet activities when he could have simply come back as himself. But I do believe Zero is right, you can't simply say well he's sockpuppeting again, therefore indefinite block. Violating a previous arbcom decision does not earn you an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. At the very least, if we're going to extend Rex's ban, there should be an arbcom decision that mandates it and a time limit should be set on the ban, otherwise that's just irresponsible blocking. --kizzle 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, for those of you who are not aware of the history, here's some details: Rex joined in July 04 to conteract extreme pro-Kerry bias at John Kerry. Now, while Rex was more or less a sh*t there several times, the ArbCom cases involved found that multiple editors - not just Rex, wee caught up in the heat of the campaign and injected campaign bias into the JK article, both pro and con. Off an on since joining, Rex got in some SNAFUs for heaping insults and 3RR and also for obstructing the prgress of the (pro-Kerry) consesnsus at that article. As it stands, there are several things still in place against Rex. a) Do not edit John Kerry b) Cite all controversial edits to a reliable source and c) If "disruptive" can be banned from an article by any admin. As for violations of these, there are specific remedies in place, noe of which include a permanent ban. So let's assume for a minute that Merecat is Rex, what did this mean? It mean that that Rex, disguised as Merecat was able to successfully edit John Kerry with no problems. Ah, then it would follow that the oppossion to Rex's edits, att least at this point is ad-hominem in that an edit by Rex071404 would be opposed, but the samee edit by another name or IP is fine. Now regarding User:Neutral aribiter and User:Wombdpsw, I see no evidence that they are "disruptive" or have "failed to cite controversial edits" or "have edited John Kerry. This being true, there is no acceptable basis that a check user ought to be run against either of them, for at worst, they would be alternate accounts (which is allowed - see here). Of course, the argument can be made "rex has exhausted community patience", but that does not hold water because Merecat (who is said to be Rex) had consensus on his side at the RfC (see here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat). Also the argument can be made that Rex evaded/sockpuppeted with Merecat, so he should be banned. PErhaps, but there are specified sanctions already in place by ArbCom which, if a penalty is applied to Rex, must be what's applied. Ad Hoc, shoot-from the-hip sanctions against Rex in the form of a permenant block is bust unsupportedable by process and flat out wrong. But let's suppose for a minute that Rex ends up permanently barred. I suggest to you that this is precisely what some editors here seek, but not for the reasons stated. Rather, the benefit of a perma-block on Rex is that for any editor who is later objected to by the known POV pushers like User:Keven Baas (see proof of that here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Baas) and his allies such as User:Nescio himself currently blocked for 3rr violation at Haditha incident (Kevin and Nescio both advanced the failed Rfc against Merecat), these two and their like minded cohorts can simply say "REX" and seek to do a check user against anyone - based on minor editing vagaries. Frankly, what the Rex banners actually seek is a license to witch hunt against anyone, based on the "Rex" name alone. Now for all of you who are saying Rex=bad. I am wondering if you have even studies the edits of each account / IP being accused. The edits being made are not troll-bait and the editors making them are not being tendentious - no more so than editors such as User:Mr. Tibbs or User:Nescio. As it stands now, the wiki president for a long time editor who is being hounded off was set by User:Michael. Based on that, there is simply no reason that User:Rex071404 should be denied the opportunity to transition to User:Merecat. But what's the point anyway - look at the edit history of User:Wombdpsw and see how User:Gongonzilla is now opposing him based on unconfirmed allegations of "sockpuppet". It's as if some editors prefer to turn off their ability to think critically and instead prefer to revert and oppsed based on user name alone. This being the case, I fail to see how a rational person would not changed account names regularly. To sum up, from where I see, it would appear that the complainst against Merecat's edits are basically groundless and Merecat was basicaly a good, albeit somewhat dogmatic editor. No reasonable person here can honestly say that Merecat was naywhere near as bad as Rex was. And there is simply no honest basis for inquiring against any of these newly accused editors. Have they been doing 3RR? Have they been calling names? None of them have done anything wrong. This "Rex" witch-hunting is nothing more that out-of-process ad hoc pig- piling. It's not intellectually honsest and it will not accomplish the goal of making the articles on the wiki better. Take a look at User:Rex071404's talk page history and pull up the contribution list of of a few of those who keep reverting the unblock requests posted there. For example see this. Does this user ever make any article edits? It seems that all he does is boss others around and talk to people. A comment pool (which is what the wiki is) will eventualy coagulate if a proper ratio of article edits to bossing is not maintained. When you have too many chiefs and not enough indians, nothing gets done. Take a look at the article White Cracker. Rex started that article and it has grown to be a valuable entry. Take a look at Yttrium aluminium garnet. Merecat started that article and it has grown to be a fine article too. What the "POPs" (political article police) around here don't understand is that people are naturally drawn to chime in on controversy. The controversial articles on the wiki are the "bait" which attract and retain editors. If you keep chasing ediors aaway from them, you will contribute to diminshing your compounding ratios. Oh well, ban away of you must, but don't fool ypurselves into thinking that you will achieve NPOV by chasing away only those who disagree with you. And if that's not what you are doing, then why are editors such as User:Prometheuspan allowed to run amok? I suggest that it's because he pushes a POV that many liberal editors agree with and for that reason, no matter how terrible he behaves (like recently calling wikipedia "evil" on Jimbo's talk page), it's all overlooked. Same too for User:Nescio and User:Kevin Baas. Regards, 69.46.20.59 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Assuming that this IP editor is also Rex/Merecat, or that Rex/Merecat is reading this debate, I would offer the following advice. Admit to switching accounts, apologize for the talk page spamming that got Merecat banned in the first place (and also outed him as the Anon Texan), and agree to use only one account in the future and to abide by the last ArbCom ruling. Under those circumstances, it shouldn't matter which account he chooses to use. If no sympathetic admin will unblock at that point, appeal the community ban to Arbcom following the example of Saladin1970, Thatcher131 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that there is no true "anon texan" user account and that acount was used fraudulently by certain liberal editors as a tracking device? Why do some editors get to make up sockpuppets, but others get blocked for socks and/or alternate accounts? Merecat did not create the User:Anon Texan account and neither did Rex. That account is a fraud and it enabled a FALSE check user to be run against Merecat. All the checkuser evidence against Merecat should be trown out as being unetheically obtained on an non-valid basis. What about all the false allegations about User:CantStandYa/User:Shran? Perhaps if people had just left the anonymous editor from Texas alone, Merecat not have come to life. Merecat's edit history shows him to have been idle form many months and only came to life with the IP editos from Dallas ISP were being hassled by POV warriors who made of the phony "Anon Texan" name. Thatcher, you yousrself have said that anon IP editor was not transgressing, so why should people be allowed to hassle him? There is no rule that says you have to log in to edit and frankly based on what happened to Merecat, why bother? There is a lot of finger pointing that could go around here and not all of it is on Merecat. And everyone nees to stop sayig "Rex!" "Rex!" all the time. If User:Rex071404 had wanted to keep using that account, he would have been doing so since long ago. That fact that he's basically left that account as dead, should make clear that Rex is gone and will never edit under that name again. 69.46.20.59 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet somehow he keeps coming back using IPs and sockpuppet accounts. --kizzle 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hoof38

This user is writing articles like Second floor, Third floor, Fourth floor, etc. These are totally useless entries, and if I could think of a way to tag them for speedy deletion, I would. As it is, someone is going to have to waste time prodding these or taking them through AfD. I'm assuming this is a well-meaning effort, but I'm not the only person to leave him messages about his articles. Help? Erik the Rude 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Put them in for AfD if you feel they are not valid articles or need transwickifying, and see what the consensus is. Maybe they can be expanded as User:Hoof38 says, or merged or just deleted. Debate seems the next step. Something unexpected might arise in the course of discussion (or maybe not). Tyrenius 04:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message suggesting he add any interesting information to the main article, floor. If he agrees we can just quietly delete the articles without the need to go through AfD (that's CSD G7, for you policy wonks). --bainer (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess not. He's unprod'ed them all with the note "More than a dicdef" though he hasn't added any content to support it. Fan1967 04:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like mass AfD time. --InShaneee 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik the Rude has taken care of it: AfD's for Second through Tenth Floors. -- Fan1967 04:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Science3456 (same obsession with pandigital numbers as some of the socks that created all the panigital number pools). I have just denied an unblock request, so I obviously support the block. Kusma (討論) 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was incorrectly called a sockpuppet. My account should be unblocked as soon as possible. 152.163.100.65 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As Kusma has noted, User:Hoof38's editing patterns mirror almost exactly many of the 100+ accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Science3456. Some examples of those contribs: ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3, ex. 4. The sad thing is that this person seems to be able to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, but often decides to absolutely ignore many of the rules here. -Big Smooth 00:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Gzlfb's highly inapporpriate signature

He has been signing as "G-spot". He hasn't edited since May 28 though. I've left him a message.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Debatable I think, though I haven't read the username guidelines in a while. On a website that has pictures of a vagina just 3 clicks away... =) --mboverload@ 06:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out Inappropriate user names:

Inflammatory usernames: Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to: ...

Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre

It seems from this that G-spot is not an acceptable usage.

Tyrenius 10:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not sure where we stand on the issue, and I think it might be best for him/her to change the sig, note that it's not his username, it's his sig. Therefore Wikipedia:User name doesn't really apply. Ral315 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Rape / Many-Worlds / Michael D. Wolok / Nlu / lethe

I'd like some help on Talk:Rape -- in particular, Michael D. Wolok (talk · contribs) is turning it into a soapbox about what should be considered rape and what should not. Having someone else step in would be a very good thing, I think. --Nlu (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How about putting in a Request for comment to get third party involvement? Tyrenius 07:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's already one there:

Talk:Rape Whether the current lead-paragraph definition of rape should be replaced with a definition that Michael D. Wolok (talk · contribs) proposed. 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius 07:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have 24 hour banned this character in the past for 3RR, which apparently caused him to call Jimbo's cell phone while Jimbo was sitting down to dinner with his parents [66]. Pretty hilarious. Anyway, Wolok does not "get" wikipedia, I can say that for sure. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it's unfortunate that RfC did not have much effect, but is there any administrative action to be taken here? It seems to me that Wolok has learned not to violate 3RR, and you're just stuck with a stubborn user. Or maybe there is something I'm missing? -lethe ^{talk +} 09:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article RfC isn't getting enough response, have you considered trying mediation? If its just the two of you, you can always go for a third opinion as well. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 09:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the article talk page. The lead paragraph doesn't follow style guide at the moment. Wolok is right to be dissatisfied with it. Tyrenius 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

His discussion about the lead paragraph is fine. It's Wolok's subsequent diatribe about how people should be allowed to have sex with partners who are asleep, intoxicated, &c. that's causing the talk page to deteriorate. That discussion doesn't belong on Talk:Rape because Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. In effect, Wikipedia is about what things are, not what they should be. --Nlu (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Those are pretty far-out things to be pushing on Wikipedia, and you might be able to get action on it (Mediation, Arbitration). In the mean time, I might suggest simply ignoring his diatribes on the talk page. Perhaps push them to a designated subpage, or to Wolok's own userspace (they can certainly derail existing constructive conversation which the talk page was meant for, so this is a good idea). Only if he tries to push his outlying views into the article is there a real problem, at which point, revert, and block for 3RR if necessary. This strategy worked well against Wolok at Many-worlds interpretation, where we faced similar problems (long rambling OR). Now, this isn't an optimal solution. The optimal solution is to teach Wolok either to conform or to get lost. For that I see no easy solution. By the way, if you enact the suggestions I made, there is a good chance that Wolok will email every member of the Advocacy committee, the Mediation committe, the Arbitrarion committe, and Jimbo with the header "Greeting Earthling" and ask for a ruling against you. Be forewarned. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, can help myself :) Who is this Wolok and why does he have Jimbo's cell #?? (that call at diner was funny) He is VERY new here, not like I am ANY veteran, but from the threads, he seems sincere and technology aside, seems like he wants to help. All the policies ect, can be overwelming. I might suggest that he tries to work on topics that he isn't so passionate about so he can learn the processes and inner workings of this project before trying to edit what really interests him. Maybe I'll do that now. Sorry for the interupption, carry on :) --Tom 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just left a welcome note on this users page. Thinking about it more, it seems like the bans, ect are pretty harsh. This users is GREEN, like really green, SO WHAT!?! I remember my first days/weeks/months, come to think of it TO THIS DAY, I still strugle with all the policies/guidlines/afds/rfcs/wpbios/nors/npovs/ YADDA YADDA YADDA. I haven't looked at this guys edits because to me thats not the point. From the thread you can tell he CARES and he isn't (ok I am guessing here) a troll. With all the trolls and anti-WIKI and admins blanking their user pages we NEED to be more welcoming it seems. OK, I am done rambling and preaching, this really ain't my style. I would be HAPPY to work with this guy and I don't know him from Adam. Cheers! --Tom 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Wolok is not a troll. He has good intentions. I disagree with most of the rest of what you wrote. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it kinda weird how he sometimes signs his posts "Grass"? I wonder what's up with that. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I can understand someone being mad with drunken sex being defined as rape (I am), that is not the legal definition as far as I know, and does not belong there. Does the user understand this? Then again, advocating for sex while a person is asleep to be legal is pretty strange. I get images of necrophilia in my head just thinking about it. (person doesn't respond) --mboverload@ 10:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I know how to indent.

Hi Folks, Thank you Tom, for pointing me here. First, of all, lets get something straight. I NEVER said having sex with someone who is asleep is not rape, nor did I ever say it is rape. I said it can be rape or not, depending on the circumstances. Nlu apparently disagrees and maintains it is always rape to have sex with someone who is asleep. He apparanlty has arrived at his belief by misunderstanding something he read. If someone has sex with their wife, and they know their wife wouldn't mind, and they are right, I doubt many people would call this "rape." Moreover, I don't think there is a court in the world that would call this rape. Apparantly Nlu disagrees with me. The issue is relevant to the article because we are trying to define "rape." I suggested rape is non-consensual penetration. Then I questioned my own definition. I am not convinced that every case where there is not express consent is properly called rape, such as the example I gave.

Actually, both Nlu and Lethe are arrogant, partronizing, condescending, insulting, and belittling. They each insist on forcing their view by reverting additions without discussion, by not making any attempt to edit additions but reverting them in their entirety. Lethe claims he doesn't read what I write on the discussion page, still he reverts everything I write. I need an advocate and moderation or mediation.

I inadvertantly violated the 3RR on my very first edit, because I did not know Wikipedia had this rule. After I learned this rule, I did not violate it again, though Lethe claims I did.

Lethe claims everything I wrote is wrong. I sent my additions to a world renown phyicist and cosmologist, Max Tegmark. He is a Ph.D. professor of physics at MIT. He listed my additions one at at time, and after just about each point I made, he agreed with me. Still, Lethe again and again removed them all from the article, even after other editors left them in with just minor modifications. I independently discovered Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I never made this claim before, and I don't expect anyone to believe me. I arrived at the interpretation strictly from logic.

I tried to imagine a perfectly logical nascent universe. I realized that such a universe would be in the exact same position as Buridan's ass. I couldn't see how a perfectly logical universe could again and again choose just one path out of many equally good paths. The Copenhagen Intepretation of Quantum Mechanics would have us believe that the universe just takes one single path out of a near infinite number of equally good paths. I then asked myself what would happen if the universe took every possible path like electricity takes every equally good path. I immediately realized if the universe did in fact take every possible quantum path, it would answer all but one of the paradoxes and difficulties of Quantum Mechanics. Every proponent of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics agrees with me. I believe it is important to get all the advantages of the Many Worlds Interpretation listed in the artlce. Lethe disagrees with the Many Worlds Interpretation, and doesn't see why those who favor it see the problems they do. The Many-Worlds Interpretation addresses most of Einstein's objections to the theory. Any objective party would agree with this, but Lethe disputes every single thing I say.

'Subject: Re: Greetings Earthling! Prof. Max Tegmark

Date: 5/19/2006 9:54

From: tegmark@MIT.EDU

To: MichaelDWolok@aol.com

Hi Michael, Thanks for your message and kind words. Alas, I'm too swamped by various deadlines right now to respond in detail to your MWI questions or accept your intriguing trading offer. As you know, I'm a strong supported of Everett's MWI. My opinions are well summarized in the two articles at http://space.mit.edu/home/ tegmark/everett.html and http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/ quantum.html.

> I claimed Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation

> offers the following advantages over the Copenhagen

> Interpretation.

>

> 1. It more simply and more naturally resolves the

> paradox of wave-particle duality.

I agree.

> 2. It justifies the anthropic principle.

I agree, but only partially, since Level III adds nothing new over Level II - see http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html

> 4. It automatically generates Feynman's sum-over-histories.

> The Copenhagen interpretation does not generate

> Feynman's sum-over-histories.

>

> 5. In other interpretations Feynman's sum-over-histories is

> a mere mathematical quirk, because in these interpretations

> every path is not really taken.

I don't quite agree here, since many of these histories are far from semiclassical "parallel universes".

> 6. It simply explains Schrodinger's Cat paradox.

Certainly.

> 7. It returns Quantum Mechanics to a deterministic theory.

> God does not play dice. By doing this, it makes

> Quantum Mechanics more compatible with relativity

> which along with all other scientific theories are a

> deterministic theory.

Agreed.

> 8. It eliminates the problem of trying defining what exactly

> constitutes "measurement."

Agreed.

> 9. It eliminates Von Neumann's boundary problem: where

> to draw the line between the micro world where Quantum

> Mechanics works, and the Macro world where it doesn't.

Agreed.

> 10. It eliminates the special place for an observer and

> human consciousness.

Agreed.

> 11. It restores objective reality to the universe between

> measurements.

Yes.

> It seems Einstein's main objection with Quantum mechanics

> had to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation and not the

> theory itself.

I agree.

Best wishes,

;-)

--------------------------------------

Prof. Max Tegmark

Dept. of Physics, MIT

70 Vassar Street Rm. 37-626B

Cambridge, MA 02139

Lethe claimed everything I wrote was wrong. Max Tegmark clearly disagrees.

Proponents of The Many-Worlds Interpretation claim if it were true, it would yield ten or so benefits. I want to list all these benefits in the article. I sent an email to a world famous cosmologist who is a major proponent of The Many-Worlds Interpretation, and he basically agreed with most of the points in my list.

Some editors are strongly opposed to the Many Worlds Interpretation, and don't want the public to know why those who favor it do so, because that would lead to further support for theory. They are vehemently against the theory on principle because it can't be falsified. I understand this objection and think it is a good objection. But I think Ocaam's Razor favors the theory, others say otherwise.

Before I personally knew anyone had proposed the theory, I independently realized what the theory would accomplish, if true.

I also want the article to include the fact that the theory was initially rejected and virtually forgotten. And I want the article to include the fact that Everett left the field of physics because of the poor reception it received. I think any objective party would agree that these undisputed facts would be of interest to the general reader.

Lethe removes whatever I contribute without bothering to read the support I produce for my claims on the discussion page. Instead of editing my contributions, he just removes them in their entirety without comment and asks others to do the same. He claimed every single thing I wrote is wrong.

He maintains this even after a world famous cosmologist explicitly agreed with just about every point on my list. It seems to Lethe's hostility to the theory is effecting his judgment, or maybe he just disdains me because I am not a physicist.

In any event, his conduct appears contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't know who Lethe is, but he has been very insulting, hostile and patronizing from the get-go.

At present, the article contains a lot of irrelevant equations. All the equations in the article are unnecessary because every equation in the article is equally shared by all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The value of of Hugh Everett's theory is not in equations, because Hugh Everett's theory does not add or subtract one single equation from quantum mechanics. Everyone agrees to this.

What Everett does is reinterpret the equations of quantum mechanics. If Everett's new interpretation didn't accomplish anything but generate countless universes, his theory would have no value, and violate Ocaam's Razor. The value of Hugh Everett's theory comes from my list of benefits. These benefits are accepted by all those who favor the theory. Leaving out one or more of these benefits makes Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation less desirable.

At one point, Lethe was insisting a "Paradox" could not be a "seeming contradiction," that the word "paradox" and "contradiction" mean exactly the same thing. He quoted the definition from a third-rate, obscure dictionary. I maintain that "wave-paticle duality" is a paradox even if it is not a contradiction, and even if there is an explanation for it. The mere fact that it seems paradoxical to the layman is enough to allow it to be called a "Paradox." Borh and Heisenberg called it a paradox and gave the controversial "principle of complimentarity" to explain it. Richard Feynman said it could not really be understood. The Many-Worlds Interpretation makes this paradox evaporate from the get-go. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation and "the principle of complimentarity" energy and matter act like either a wave or a particle depending on the exact manner of observation. "The principle of complimentarity" makes reality dependant on observers. Between observations, the "prinicple of complimentarity" says nothing exists. If we don't accept the principle of complimentarity or the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, we are left with a contradiction. Einstein rejected the claim that reality is dependant on our observation. He said the moon exists whether we look at it or not.

Michael D. Wolok 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if you know nothing about physics, you can understand what I am trying to do, and why I am trying to do it. In the 1920s, Neils Bohr and Warner Heisenberg created a theory we know today as Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics seemed to have some queer features that made it different from all previous scientific theories. For example, every other scientific theory is completely deterministic. Quantum mechanics is not a deterministic theory. According to quantum mechanics certain things seem to happen randomly such as the exact moment particles decay. In response to this randomness, Einstein said, "God does not place dice with the universe." Another strange fact of quantum mechanics is sometimes light acts like a wave and sometimes it acts like a particle. Likewise according to quantum mechanics, sometimes electrons act like a wave and sometimes they act like a particle. Einstein argued with Bohr and Heisenberg. He said, quantum mechanics is likely an incomplete theory, that with better understanding of the universe we would eventually eliminate the randomness of quantum mechanics. The theory that Bohr and Heisenberg created had other problems. Together Bohr and Heisenberg came up with an interpretation of quantum mechanics that addressed these issues. This interpretation by Bohr and Heisenberg became known as "the standard model" or "the Copenhagen Interpretation." This interpretation by Bohr and Heisenberg had a few problems. One, it proposed there is no such thing as objective reality between measurements. Einstein was very critical of this contention. He said the moon exists whether people look at it or not, that humans are not necessary for the universe to exist. The Copenhagen Interpretation had many other problems as well such as how to define the concept of measurement, why measurement should effect reality, where to draw the line between the microscopic world where quantum mechanics appears true, and the macroscopic world where it doesn't. The Copenhagen Interpretation led to a famous paradox called "Schrodinger's Cat Paradox." In the end, Richard Feynman a famous physicist who refined quantum mechanics said, "You are not going to be able to understand quantum mechanics, nobody can." But as time went on, physicists stopped looking at the philosophical problems the Copenhagen Interpretation seemed to present. The theory worked, and as far as most physicists were concerned that is all that mattered.

At this point, somebody by the name of Hugh Everett came up with another interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation our universe is the only universe, and nature just takes one quantum pathway out of a near infinite number of equally good quantum pathways. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, when the universe comes to a fork in the road, it randomly takes one path or the other, it doesn't take both. According to Hugh Everett's Interpretation, when the universe meets a fork in the road with two equally good quantum pathways open to it, it takes both pathways, not just one pathway. This implies the universe splits at each quantum juncture. That is why Hugh Everett's theory is called: "The Many Worlds Interpretation." Now, if Hugh Everett's theory just predicted the existence of countless extra universes we can't ever detect, it would violate Ocaam's razor and it would be a silly theory.

However, a remarkable thing happens if Hugh Everett's theory is true: all the philosophical problems created by the Copenhagen Interpretation automatically evaporate. It is not so much that Hugh Everett's theory proposes an alternative answer to these problems, but rather the philosophical problems don't arise in the first place. If Hugh Everett's theory is true, it answers Einstein's main objections to the theory, it makes theory deterministic like all other scientific theories including special and general relativity. If Hugh Everett's theory is true, it restores objective reality between measurements. It eliminates the need to define what constitutes a measurement. It eliminates the need for the universe to have observers. It does away with the need for human consciousness. It solves the Schrodinger Cat Paradox. It more simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. It does away with the need for the "principle of complimenatrity" and simply and naturally explains wave-particle duality. Just about every physicist agrees with these claims. Max Tegmark a famous proponent of Hugh Everett's theory agreed with these claims. I want to put them in the article in the form of a list, because these are the reasons why those who favor Hugh Everett's theory do so.

Lethe doesn't like Hugh Everett's theory. He sees no problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. A lot of physicists agree with Lethe. The philosophical problems Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac and Feynman had with the theory don't bother them. Einstein said, Bohr and Heisenberg brainwashed a generation of physicists.

So we are at an impasse. I think the article needs to do a better job explaining what I wrote here. I think the article should include a list of all the advantages proponents of the theory claim for the theory. And I think the article should note that Hugh Everett left the field of physics because the Many Worlds Interpretation was at first ridiculed and rejected by all who saw it. I think the article should include the fact that his theory started gaining popularity in the 1980s. As time passes it has gained more and more adherents. Today most cosmologists favor the theory. Today, it is considered a mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics. Lethe doesn't want readers to know about this trend because it favors the theory, and Lethe opposes it.

I need your help to request moderation. As the article stands, now, it is essentially incomprehensible to the layman. No layman would gather the above from reading the existing article. I can't improve the article with Lethe deleting every single word I add, and disputing every single claim I make even though I supply ample support for all my claims.. If you read the article's talk page you will understand the hostility I am up against. As it stands now the entry is biased against the Many Worlds Interpretation because it does such a poor job listing the reasons why those who favor it do so.

Presumably, you can help me by bringing in more editors, and by helping me request moderation.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

PS. If I had the support of other editors I would completely rewrite the article so it could be understood by everyone. I would like to note, that the article does not need to contain a single equation, since every equation found in Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation is also found in the Copenhagen Interpretation and vice versa. Of course, physics students may be curious how Everett interprets various equations in quantum mechanics, so they can be left in for physics students. But any bright physics student ought to be able to read my explanation of Hugh Everett's theory, and figure out for himself how to interpret the standard equations of quantum mechanics.

I have a special interest in this article because in the 1980s, I independently discovered Hugh Everett's theory. I had never heard Hugh Everett or his theory. I imagined the nascent universe being in the exact same situation as Buridan's ass. I asked myself, how could a perfectly logical universe devoid of free will choose one single path over a near infinite number of equally good paths. I then asked myself what would happen if the universe took every branch open to it like electricity takes every branch open to it. I immediately realized if this was the case, then all the philosophical problems posed by the Copenhagen Interpretation would automatically disappear. Many years later I learned Hugh Everett had proposed this exact idea in 1958. I discovered this by stumbling across Michael Clive Price's famous Internet Hugh Everett FAQ. It just so happens that Michael Clive Price is another editor involved in trying to edit this Wikipedia entry. I think by-and-large, Price and I agree on just about everything.

Michael D. Wolok 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Advantages of MWI

Proponents of MWI believe that it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Coppenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Coppenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Coppenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. It more simply and naturally resolves the paradox of wave-particle duality. By doing this it simply explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. It simply explains Schrodinger's Cat paradox.

Based on the above advantages, it seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself[citation needed]. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle[citation needed].

Michael D. Wolok 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the way Wiki works here. It is not a question of two (or more) editors battling out their definition and interpretation of a subject—it is about finding what other sources and authorities have to say about it, and representing those. If there are conflicting authorities, then a balanced representation of the conflict should be given. If the policies and guidelines were followed, there wouldn't be this problem. Read, study, digest and apply the following: No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, The perfect article, Citing sources, Footnotes. It will make life a lot easier for all concerned. Tyrenius 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I need your help to request moderation. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment for requesting outside opinions. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for requesting a mediator step in. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to request the Arbitration Committee to rule on the issue (the Arbitration Committee has the authority to ban people for bad behavior). -lethe ^{talk +} 03:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius wrote: "It is not a question of two (or more) editors battling out their definition and interpretation of a subject—it is about finding what other sources and authorities have to say about it, and representing those. If there are conflicting authorities, then a balanced representation of the conflict should be given."

I agree! I have submitted many sources that support my position. Lethe seems to disagree. That is why I need mediation and moderation. The process seems complicated. I am asking for help implementing moderation.

You sound like you need someone to hold your hand and read out loud to you the instructions on the various dispute resolution pages. Perhaps you will find someone at Wikipedia:Help desk willing to do this for you? Alternatively, you could simply reply to any of the people who have been by your talk page to offer help. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius wrote: "If there are conflicting authorities, then a balanced representation of the conflict should be given."

That is exactly what I am looking for. Did you read what I wrote?

Michael D. Wolok 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Connor & User:Pitchka

Could someone have a little talk with User talk:Pitchka (linking there instead of the userpage, since the userpage is a redirect to Sideshow Cinema, a practice which is of concern itself) about not challenging everyone in an AFD and assuming good faith? I'd do it myself, but I'm already on the hit list for nominating the article. (He's signed as "Dwain" on the AFD). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on the talk page about good faith and no personal attacks. However, it is a discussion, so I think it would be questionable to try to limit that. However, I have put notes on the AfD page about two of the participants who are new users. I hope this helps. Tyrenius 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You needent remind me it is a discussion; there was a time, before my day was filled with running checkusers and closing RfAs, that I closed hundereds of deletion disucssions each day. While it is a discussion, contributors have the right to express their opinions, and to have those opinions discussed civilly and respectfully. "Who the heck are you to suggest that he isn't?" is neither. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New rage of Roitr

Please block sockpuppets User:Nixer. and User:Tutmosis. created by Roitr to impersonate me and user User:Tutmosis. There are some other sockpuppets of Roitr not blocked yet. Newest information you can find here: User:Roitr/sockpuppetry. Maybe we should semi-protect some most vandalized articles.--Nixer 10:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New rouge admin

From deletion log:

• 13:06, 2 June 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard" (fuck off)

Also I find this edit absolutely hilarious: [67]. What a great simplification of the DRV process! LOL jni 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand wanting to go out in a blaze of infamy. Syrthiss 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hardly infamy - you'll forget it soon. If I'd wanted to be disruptive , I'd have deleted DRV - but I didn't. --Doc ^ask? 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. :( Syrthiss 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blaze of minor irritation, then? Kirill Lokshin 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Doc rash-gow? ;) Syrthiss 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

everyone needs a break sometimes.Geni 15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess they will give his admin rights back after he returns from his "retirement". Lapinmies 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. No objection to haveing him back as an editor but someone would probably make a case for it haveing to go through WP:RFA.Geni 15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that the redirect was reverted without discussion. It was hilarious as well as representative of current practice. Friday (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really.Geni 15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with Friday. Will (^E_@) T 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Me as well, that has cheered me right up after a depressing day of revision. the wub "?!" 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be rogue, rather than rouge, assuming he's errant and not red, that is? Tyrenius 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I just assumed he wore a lot of makeup or something. --Guinnog 16:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this spelling is spreading in wiki and wondered if I've missed something (like a transatlanticism). So we assume no one can spell rogue properly then? I thought it was a bit odd that there complaints about red admins nowadays. Tyrenius 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:ROUGE. Friday (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rouge admins is more to the point ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I can't let this go any longer: why on Category:Rouge admins do we use a photograph in which the most prominent feature is MASCARA???!?!?! <bseg> RadioKirk talk to me 00:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You live and learn. Another cranny of wiki revealed.:) Tyrenius 16:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar'd. Don't leave, Docco. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just gave him another barnstar. Doc, seriously, that's fucking hilarious! --mboverload@ 19:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds that absolutely hilarious. --Rory096 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I stoped finding that kind of thing funny sometime during april 1st 2005.Geni 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite sure this is pretty unique. --mboverload@ 23:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the redirect funny (no offense, Tony). More troubling is the apparent rise in the loss of longtime editors and admins recently (not all of them good contributors, but definitely a significant portion of them). -- Kjkolb 01:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. The redirect was a reference to a recent semi-serious suggestion made on DRV. I'm sad to see Doc burn out like this; he intimated he as on the verge of giving up the other night. We do seem to have lost more than the usual number of good people lately. --Tony Sidaway 13:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Now if he'd only make George W. Bush a redirect to Hanlon's Razor....oops, I spilled the beans. :P-- The ikiroid  20:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

68.249.7.14 (talk) just called me a child molester, etc. etc. here, presumably because I blocked this account for 24 hours for personal attacks. It would be inappropriate for me to revert this or to take any further action as it is directed at me personally. Could someone else take some action, please? Note that this is an IP address, not a signed-in user, but there's no evidence it is a shared IP. --Yamla 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that it would be inappropriate for you to take action in this case. We do want to avoid the reality or appearance of conflicts of interest, certainly, but IMO this needn't apply to blatantly obvious cases. But, I've reverted and left another "don't do that" warning. Friday (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Appalling profanity, ethnic slurs, threats by blocked user on his talk page

AlexPU (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been blocked yesterday for a week by Dmcdevit (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). In the block, the following reason was cited: "3RR and more egregious incivility despite many previous "final" warnings".

The last block was prompted by this activity (pay attention to edit summaries and actual words used at the talk page entries). This isn't a new behavior from this user lately.Perhaps these two entries from recent archive of this very board would help remind some of what's going on: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive99#Uncivility report and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive97#user:AlexPU|maintaining an attack page and perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki]].

The user beats the record by an amount of "FINAL warnings" he received (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9) all to no effect whatsoever. Neither his previous block (for "Personal attacks, incivil behavior") did him any good. His talk, which is an attack page on his opponents, a Black Book-type list compiled by him, isn't moderated, he persisted with addressing his opponents by their ethnicities (misapplying those too), calling them vandals, propagandists and whatever.

However, what he posted at his talk following the very last block is just unspeakable. He trippled the level of his attacks and spiced them with homophobic ("You, smelly faggot"), ethnic ("gypsy") and sexual ("whore") slurs. While there is no indication that any of his opponents actually belong to any of these groups, I am calling this behavior to the admin attention.

The first thing that comes to mind is to lock his talk page as well so that he would have no chance to assault anyone anywhere at wiki-space but this may be counterproductive as it may prevent others from talking to him and would prevent him to censor his previos attacks and the black book should he come to senses. Warning him seems useless but something needs done. Perhaps doubling the block for the post-block activity so that he sees that his actions would have further consequences? I leave it up to the community.

I don't see why we need to waste the ArbCom's time for such an obvious case. ArbCom is busy enough. I don't see any sense of an RfC since, again, this is plain enough, got sufficient exposure for many people to comment already and they commented. There seems to be a need for an action rather than talk. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've used a translator as I'm not fluent in Russian, and your summary fits. I've extended it to a month, any admin is free to change the length. Will (^E_@) T 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just get it over with and ban him? --mboverload@ 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to support an acclamation ban at this point. If he continues, I'll support acclamation banning Will (^E_@) T 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.73.109.2

Vandal was at it again today. I'm relatively new and don't know exactly what to do by way of reporting or acting, but presumably somebody does?

CAR

I've blocked the user for 31 hours JoJan 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Haizum

Could someone please look at the problem on Laura Ingraham involving user Haizum? 3RR doesn't begin to describe this one — if he disagrees with a fact, he says the link doesn't work, and has from the beginning accompanied his reversals with personal attacks. The history of the dispute is spelled out on the Talk page, as well as (unfortunately) my own User page, where Haizum has left several profane messages (now deleted but part of the history). I have asked him to stay off my User page but without success. On the Talk page, Haizum is now attributing a quote to me which is false and defamatory.

I have made thousands of edits on Wikipedia and have never encountered a user like this. I'm afraid Haizum has exhausted my patience. What can be done? Please help. Sandover 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum has been blocked for edit warring and incivility. If he isn't prepared to accept the subjects official site as a reliable source, it's teetering onto vandalism Will (^E_@) T 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think User: Haizum may have been unblocked, by user:Tawker. This was the editor's fourth block, and was scheduled at 3 days. I just got a crude email from him because I trimmed some verbatim copyrighted source material from a talk page. I think User:Sceptre's block was warranted and minor relative to the behavior and history. -Will Beback

The block was originally 48 hours. I recieved an email 10 minutes after the block saying:

Get real. Sandover started the personal attacks and is the one warring my edits while I have the courtesy to leave the disputed content up with a tag.

Furthermore, the protection is not supposed to be an endorsement of a particular version, SO WHY DID YOU REMOVE THE DISPUTED TAG?

This is unacceptable, and you can bet I will make sure it is known that you endorsed a version, contrary to policy.

Also, oh wise admin, the dispute tag was there for a part of the section that Sandover isn't even invloved in.

Shape up, it looks like you're on your way to arbitration.

It was followed just a few minutes later by this email:

Oh great, you're from the UK. So you've the protected Laura Ingraham page THE WAY YOU SEE FIT, and now I suppose you're going to try to get involved in the content even though she has no meaning in the UK.

Great, I'm sure this article will be al jazeerific once you're finished with it.

Why don't you tack on another 24 hours to the subjective block you just applied big man?

I was happy to tack twenty-four hours on for him. About eight hours ago, I received another email:

From "Page Protection Policy":

1."These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful."

2."Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism."

3."If a page is protected because of an edit war, please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is. A protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute."

1. You protected a page because of a Dispute tag. 99% of the disputed section was left unchanged, yet you claim I was warring...for ADDING material.

2. You edited the page the way you wanted to see it before you protected it. I will make sure this is burned into your record.

3. You made no attempt to resolve the dispute. You protected the page in its POV form after DELIBERATELY removing the Dispute tag.

You failed. You failed.

You failed.

This haD triggered me to lengthen the block to a week. Will (^E_@) T 11:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Sandover

We all apreciate Sandover's thousands of contributions, but that does not give this user a pass to insert POV material into a topic which I am clearly more familiar with. I urge you to see the talk page and read it thoroughly, not skim it. Regardless of this user's contributions, and regardless of mine, I am still the pillar of logic and context with regards to the Laura Ingraham page. I welcome Administrative assistance. Haizum 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Most recent edits by User:Cyde

Moved to User talk:Cyde. Please always take concerns about user behavior to their talk pages in the first instance unless there is an urgent problem.

User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg

Hi, I blocked this user for three hours because of bad faith page moves. Shanel is helping clean up the mess.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it to people who know more about Hebrew names to determine, but genuine vandalism (as opposed to mistaken boldness) in pagemoves is worth a block a lot longer than 3 hours. If he is a good faith user he needs to be educated about Willy on Wheels. The Land 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:134.134.136.3

134.134.136.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has threatened to bring a slander case against me and anyone who particpates in the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Lacche. If you look at the history of Justin Lacche it looks as if he has also goes by User:Lacjc126. I don't feel that anything in the AfD can possibly be considered slander, and ask that an admin deals with his legal threats. VegaDark 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a month. See if you can get a checkuser to verify if the two users are the same Will (^E_@) T 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to unblock. WP:LEGAL suggests that blocking is not appropriate for a simple legal threat. I have left a sufficiently clear warning on the IP's talk page. The Land 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• TheLand, I don't think you're reading this correctly. If you could review WP:LEGAL a bit more carefully, I think it'll be more clear. Blocking is noted as likely for legal threats, and we have a long tradition of blocking such users. I have reblocked the user for a month. --Improv 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have a policy not to block IP addresses for long periods unless they are open proxies? Secretlondon 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Define "long periods"? 1 month isn't that long. The purpose of not blocking for long is if the IP is dynamic and likely to impact another user who may then inherit that address. --pgk^(talk) 14:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Will (^E_@) T 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: The subject in the article has now e-mailed me 4 times demanding my name and stating "Please save me the time of researching your real name and just tell me your name", "I will continue to press every day until you reveal your identity, so do us both a favor and save the time." and "Obviously, some in Bexel will know you, so there is no point avoiding this...as I certainly won't drop this matter, so do the fair thing and take off the mask.". I obviously don't intend to reveal any personal information to him, but I find it rather unsettling that he is determined to find my real identity. VegaDark 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this justifies a longer block. His initial threats were against VegaDark and he continues to threaten this user through email. Is there any way we can confirm this? --Yamla 15:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacjc26 is the same as 134 due to an email I recieved earlier today. Will (^E_@) T 11:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we find HIS phone number and tell him to fuck off? We can NOT allow this kind of abuse. --mboverload@ 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn & SirIsaacBrock

User:Liftarn

Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this individual removed my comments from the talk pages of Jew and Holocaust, would you please block his account for 24 hours, thank you SirIsaacBrock 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Will (^E_@) T 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Without reviewing the diffs on this case, I highly recommend that this block be reviewed as from my own personal experience relative to User:SirIsaacBrock it is likely that User:Liftarn was removing commentary of a personal attack nature left by User:SirIsaacBrock. Netscott 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As a subscriber to the WikiEn-I mailing list I was independently contacted by a fellow editor who had this to say:

SirIsaacBrock is up to his usual self. People who remove his comment -- the same comment you warned him about! -- are getting listed by him as vandals on the administrator noticeboard, and are getting blocked from editing wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Liftarn This is the same stunt he pulled on me in the past. If you are an administrator, any help you can offer to users like Liftarn (I dont know liftarn, and have never crossed his path until 5 minutes ago) and others who are getting blocked because SirIsaacBrock labels them as "spammers" and "vandals" is much appreciated.

Netscott 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

These are the diffs in question: Talk:The Holocaust, Talk:Jew. In both cases SirIsaacBrock posted the same message trying to find people who would support him adding the category Category:Anti-Semitic people to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He also suggested that recipients of the Islamic Barnstar were anti-Semites. I think perhaps the blocks are in the wrong place here. --bainer (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, see further discussion below. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:SirIsaacBrock regarding Barnstar group

Greetings, User:SirIsaacBrock is in the process of personally attacking anyone displaying a barnstar that is awarded to those who've made beneficial edits relative to topics on Islam. He refers to such individuals as anti-semites. He has been impinging upon the reputations of those displaying the Islamic topics barnstar in several talk pages, most related to Jewish topics: [68] [69] [70] [71].

I became aware of this thanks to the currently blocked User:Liftarn (due to a WP:ANI report filed by User:SirIsaacBrock?) and proceeded to politely warn User:SirIsaacBrock to not make such statements relative to WP:NPA [72]:

Greetings, It's been brought to my attention that you are spreading word in a personal attack fashion that those who've recieved a barnstar for their contributions on Islamic topics are anti-semites. I highly recommend that you 1. cease from making false accusations immediately and 2. remove all previous talk pages messages saying as much. If you do not follow this advice you will likely face being blocked as a Wikipedia editor. Sincerely, Scott Stevenson Netscott 19:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He responded with [73]:

Ki$$ - U know what u can kiss and don't post anymore spam on my talk page ! SirIsaacBrock 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And was subsequently warned by User:Timothy Usher [74]

Mr.Brock, in reference to your recent incivil post on Netscott's page, and the posts to which he refers above: personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. It's that simple. Don't make them.Timothy Usher 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Whereupon he removed my warning and User:Timothy Usher's warning with personal attack editorial commentary:

"Remove anti-Semitic spammers"

And he subsequently "warns" User:Timothy Usher re Timothy Usher's NPA warning :

Warning - Please do not post any further comments on my talk page or you will be reported. I am not interested in reading McPinions on any topic. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now ordinarily I'd request that this user be warned but as I've personally warned him and he's been warned independently by User:Timothy Usher at this point he should be warned and blocked to prevent his further personal attacks. Netscott 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• User:SirIsaacBrock has been notified of this report. Netscott 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week, becuase it seemed to me pretty aggravated and nasty. However, I have one of the barnstars on my page, so if anyone wants to unblock or shorten the block, I will not object. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus has blocked him for two days; I support that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I support either block. From all the evidence you've shown, it's quite clear this was neither a misunderstanding nor a one-time slipup. --InShaneee 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been independently contacted by an additional user on WikiEn-I about User:SirIsaacBrock (see User:Liftarn's report above). I'm going to have to agree with User:InShaneee and say that the week long block should be re-instated (save the threat of a wheel war). Netscott 00:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the one week block. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Brock refuses to apologize for his actions, reiterates his contention that Tom harrison is an anti-semite, and pledges to return after his block, presumably to resume his personal attacks[75]. Additionally, he continually removes warnings from his talk page, calling them “spam”, and those who placed them “spammers”[76], [77], while branding Tom harrison as “incompetent”[78].

He should be prevented from editting his user talk page during this period, to prevent him from removing relevant warnings, and as it has itself become itself a forum for personal attacks.Timothy Usher 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you bainer for your diligence in this matter. :-) Netscott 01:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now unblocked Liftarn also. --bainer (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page; whether he should be blocked indefinitely, as he seems to be requesting, is an open question. Kirill Lokshin 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well judging by his final editorial commentary and talk page comments this user may indeed be incorrigible and perhaps should be given the permanent block he's requesting... I suspect he'll show up as a sockpuppet shortly regardless. Netscott 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC

The attacks seem unusually child-like. Are we sure there is not more than one person using this account? Not that it matters much I guess. --mboverload@ 01:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but the possibility of child-POV editing had crossed my mind. Netscott 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying, can you reword that for my simple brain? =D ANYWAY, Holy. Crap. Maybe he suffers from some mental problem? To go from a content dispute to a full-out "tantrum" (sorry) seems suspicious. Again, I don't even know why I'm talking about this since it hardly matters.--mboverload@ 01:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was just commenting that this user's commentary was indeed much like that from the point of view (POV) of a child. Netscott 01:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There was still a block conflict on the log, with a one week followed by an indefinite. I just unblocked and reblocked indefinitely. Based on everything I've seen, that's appropriate. If he ever decides he wants to chill out a little bit and edit constructively, he can always email someone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty sure no one is going to contest it =( --mboverload@ 01:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an open question at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/WritersCramp about whether User:WritersCramp and User:SirIsaacBrock are the same editor. There was a suggestion that checkuser be applied to verify or refute a sock-puppet association (from 20 March) but no result of the checkuser inquiry was reported. My thought is that it would be useful at this point to complete the checkuser test and report the results. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is only for difficult cases. This one is not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you check the IP addresses you are just guessing. I wouldn't think that one would want to come to the conclusion 'well, these two users sound alike so they must be the same person' when tools are available to take some of the guesswork out of the equation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even a brief perusal of the history of User:WritersCramp's talk page shows this to be the same user as User:SirIsaacBrock, regardless of what IP(s) he is able to edit from. And even if by some infinetessimal chance it weren't the same user, User:WritersCramp is disruptive enough on his own to merit banishment.Timothy Usher 21:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. There is always a point of diminishing returns and I do usually err on the side of excessive evidence, which isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't stand in the way of consensual progress and community activity. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef ban of Almost Famous

I have indefinitely banned User:Almost Famous. The major reason was that he emailed a threat to User:Econrad, but what's more he was confirmed via that email as being User:Ericnorcross evading a ban. See Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Ericnorcross. I'm leaving this note here because I'm pretty sure there's going to be off-wiki harassment going on.  RasputinAXP  c 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question Has his IP also been blocked? Seems to me another of his socks (Katherinejohnson (talk · contribs)) got it unblocked the last time by claiming it was public. (That ID also claimed elsewhere to be his roommate, but the edit history and behavior pattern was too similar. Besides, two people like that could not cohabitate without homicide resulting.) Fan1967 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Without a checkuser we can't pop the IP address either. I'm inclined to ban "Katherine" as well.  RasputinAXP  c 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • RFCU has been entered.  RasputinAXP  c 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I've had some experience with him when he wasn't logged in. He's just as charming then. [79] - Fan1967 02:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a log of Wikimails sent? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 17:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote-stacking

Wombdpsw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is soliciting votes on the talk page of John 3:16 to influence the outcome of TdF-vote of Template:John316. -- ActiveSelective 02:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No solicitation of any kind has been made. It was only after some editors objected to my user box on the grounds that I was the only one using it (and other grounds), that I made a single post to a single talk page mentioning the existence of the template. Frankly, in my view, ActiveSelective is flat out twisting the truth. He knows darn well that his post here is far more likely to attract "voters" than my single post on an article talk page. This kind of blatant harassment by Active reeks. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to construe one post on one talk page as disruptive spamming. The template in question will be fine, in user space, where they're setting up directories already, per Wikipedia:The German solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolution: see here. And please, Womdbspws, I've been very civil with you. Stop picking on me. -- ActiveSelective 05:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Active, if you think you are being "picked on" I'd like to know why you think that. Please explain on my talk page. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet evading block?

Mr. Cookie, from what I understand, is a suspected sockpuppet of the indef-blocked user Bugman94. I personally don't have any evidence to support this, but this user has gone off and already disrupted the several pages quite a bit. From spamming {{helpme}} messages on his talk page despite requests to stop doing so to, putting needless <s> tags, and blatant copyright violations, it is my personal opinion that this is an experienced user just trying to make a scene and disrupt as much as they can as possible. An assertion that the user may be a possible sockpuppet can be seen here,

I personally am overwhelmed with the mass of edits done by this user in such a short amount of time and attempts at trying to calm down the user have failed. The user's burst of knowledge of policy, even though they claim to be new to Wikipedia, is misleading as they have jumped into putting cases into the mediation cabal concerning the user who accuses them of being a sockpuppet. It is quite possible that these beliefs are unfounded and this is just an over-eager new user, but I'm just hoping an administrator can look into this matter as I am overwhelmed at the moment and have absolutely no idea where to proceed, heh. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has now moved to vandalizing the case list at the Mediation Cabal. Cowman109^Talk 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking up the situation a bit, it seems the indef-blocked user is known for adding information that is a copyright violation. Mr. Cookie has already done this twice to the same article as linked above. Cowman109^Talk 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I am the one who originally was suspicious about this, I'll state my evidence. Posts from both accounts are very much similar, often lacking a signature. Second of all, a review of Bugman94's original user page clearly states that the user is twelve years of age; Mr. Cookie also states he is of the same age. Third of all, this user has had a so called "grudge" against me since I first began warning him at his former user talk page here. As a result, he used to vandalize and/or blank posts he made on my talk page. Well, the same thing occured on my talk page under the Mr. Cookie account (it can all be found here. I'm telling you, this is the same person. He has other screen names, such as User:GreenGoo, which have also been banned because of this same reason (sock puppetry). --EMC 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just found that this version of Bugman's userpage and this short discussion clearly show that Cookie is the same user as Bugman. Cowman109^Talk 03:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good find. That's exactly what I was referring to. So it still stands: one blatant vandalism and this user is banned. --EMC 03:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR and POV reverts by anonymous IP user

Hi all - I request you to please pay attention to [80], [81], [82]. This anon IP fellow insists on making blatantly POV edits to Hindu nationalism, and in turn accuses me of "vandalism," and me having a problem with the "truth and Hindu communalism." I'm afraid I got dangerously close to breaking the 3RR law myself, but I had to make the necessary corrections. I've warned him about WP:NPA and 3RR. I request administrator attention with this anon IP, whose next move might demand blocking. Rama's Arrow 02:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes appear to be markedly POV. I'm adding an additional personal attack comment on the IP talk page -- Samir 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange message left encoded in bold

I know this is a bit out of the scope of the page, but it is vandalism.

A user recently used bold lettering to spell out "sirgrantisgay" on the WP:VandalProof page. Does anyone know who/it this refers to and if any user has said that before? this is the edit I thought I might at least bring it to your attention in case it's a vandal comming back =( --mboverload@ 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was funny, give him a surreality barnstar. Lapinmies 08:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be encouraging vandalism. --Cyde↔Weys 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I recently approved User:SirGrant to use VandalProof, and that IP had been warned by SirGrant for vandalism. Prodego ^talk 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see this for some more info on our anon and SirGrant. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 2

This (new?) user account, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 2, just today removed a comment from Talk:Braveheart which is presumably regarded as vandalism. Could you check the doings of this new account, as I see a risk of it being some sleeper account planted to later cause havoc and/or a sockpuppet (don't know whether there are already accounts Sir Nicholas 3, Sir Nicholas 4...) Maed 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The name is the result of a name change, but I don't know why he's using the '2' account. Mistake, maybe? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be helpful. Maybe the revert was a mistake. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am so very sorry about this. I forgot to check which I account I was actually logged in. I was in the process of testing my monobook.js. I regret for any kind of inconvinience that I might have caused and the revert which I made was a mistake; as I could not understand what wead snippet meant. Regards, --Nearly Headless Nick 14:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SpamhausSucksUser:ImAnElderlyHandicappedHomosexual.DontBlockMeThatsDiscrimination.

Sort? --Quentin Smith 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

IAEHH.DBMTD blocked by Cyde. Will (^E_@) T 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike Jones

It appears some users continue to add a telephone number to this article, with the comment "His number is open to the public at all times". Even if Mr. Jones' number is freely accessible in the phone book, or even on his web site, and even if he actually wants strangers to call him, I don't think this is appropriate information for a biography. Could I get some more people to watchlist this page? — Jun. 3, '06 [19:12] <freak|talk>

Done. Thanks for taking the time to alert us. --mboverload@ 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Block By Sceptre

I was blocked by this admin for spamming, which I admit I did without knowing the policy on this. I have appologized for this in my talk page. And didn't post such messages after being warned, this admin simply didn't consider this, I dont know whether he/she should've considered this. But I feel this is very unfair, though my account was unblocked still one of my IP is blocked.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hganesan using sockpuppets to circumvent block

User:Hganesan continues to use sockpuppets to circumvent blocks placed on him. I believe he is now using User:Bucsrsafe as a sockpuppet, and also posting messages between the users to give the impression of multiple users. The choice of edits on Steve Nash is very suspicious. Simishag 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

According to [83], he's supposed to be blocked for a week, which doesn't end until tomorrow. Was he unblocked? Simishag 20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:12.134.204.214 (previously identified as a sockpuppet of User:Hganesan) removes sockpuppet tags from User:Hganesan and User:Bucsrsafe within a few minutes of each other. What an amazing coincidence. Simishag 20:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And now he's tagged me as a sockpuppet of User:Downwards. This is uncivil behavior, an attempt to smear me for no reason other than discovering his use of other accounts to push his agenda. I have posted virtually all of my contributions under my own account (with the exception of a few that might be under an IP when I wasn't logged in). I have never been blocked or attempted to circumvent any policies by using other accounts. I stand by my work. Simishag 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion from AN/3RR. I believe it was appropriate to post there since another edit war started as soon as he was unblocked but I will keep the discussion here. Simishag 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

original discussion from AN/3RR:

User:Simishag is accusing me again and I am angry about this

User:Simishag continuously is claiming User:Bucsrsafe is me when he is not. Please warn Simishag. I am very upset he is wrongly accusing me. Please tell the other admins about this. It is frustrating. He is just upset that there are people who want to get rid of the extreme nash bias on this site. I just logged on here for the first time in over a week and took time off, now I come back here and this guy is falsely accusing me. It is frustrating. Hganesan 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Reported by: hganesan

Please see [84] and [85]. User:Hganesan and his many IP addresses have been reported and blocked by at least 3 other admins in the last 2 weeks for repeated edit wars, use of sockpuppets, uncivil and threatening statements... all of which is centered around an agenda on Steve Nash. He has now gone so far as to tag my user page as a sockpuppet despite the total lack of evidence to support that. I stand by my reports and I think the evidence shows a pattern of rude, petty and uncivil behavior. Simishag 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah last TWO WEEKS we're talking about. YOU simi, tagged MY username and said I had abusive sockpuppets. That is why I tagged yours. I took OVER a WEEK off. Now you are accusing me again. There is no rude, uncivil behavior RECENTLY. Stop it. Face reality.Hganesan 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Err, what? There was no uncivil behavior because you were blocked? And now that you're unblocked, it's started again? What a coincidence. Also, I wasn't the only one who tagged your username. I did a fair amount of research to track down all your sockpuppets and keep an eye on them in case you came back. Now you've admitted that you tagged my page just for revenge, to get back at me for tracking down all this evidence. That's vandalism. Simishag 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have removed the sockpuppet tag from my user page, which perhaps shows some degree of maturity but might just be covering up evidence of your vandalism. The relevant diff is [86].

Listen you call yourself mature??? When you just accuse someone of being a sockpuppet of mine just because he posts similar facts to what I posted??? You are lying, you call that mature?? It's very uncivil and immature. I just got back at you. here is the vandalism BTW he FIRST put on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hganesan&diff=56713872&oldid=56712336 I just came back today and he just put that back on. VANDALISM. Hganesan 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

What you are doing is uncivil, accusing him of being a sockpupeteer. That is what's called UNCIVIL. ALSO, deleting EVERYTHING and all the facts is uncivil, and you edit warred with the other guy too just recently on that page. That is also called UNCIVIL. Hganesan 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

If you didn't have a long and illustrious history already, maybe I'd look the other way. But your actions are simply too obvious and too obnoxious to ignore. I made only 2 reverts to Steve Nash today, specifically for the purpose of avoiding an edit war. Deleting content is perfectly civil if the content is biased, incorrect, uncited, or otherwise doesn't belong. If you don't like having your content edited, maybe you shouldn't edit here. Again, I stand by my work, and I accept the changes of others, but I will not sit quietly while you push your agenda by using fake accounts, fallacious reasoning and argumentum ad nauseum on the talk pages. Simishag 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted it, and SIMISHAG IS LYING, that is why I originally put one on there. I was supposed to be unblocked on the 29th. IF YOU CHECK, my last post on this account was on the 19th, and another user said my block was extended a week from the 22nd. Another lie. He is just wanting to promote his agenda and he doesn't want people to get rid of the propaganda he has spilled on the articles. It is frustrating. I am trying to contribute now that I took OVER A WEEK off and he is accusing me like this. VERY uncivil. Hganesan 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

According to [87], you were blocked by User:Jossi for 1 week starting at 22:06, 28 May 2006. That means your block isn't up until 22:06, 4 Jun 2006 (about 24 hours from now). Simishag 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Long history??? I just started editing again TODAY. And you come here and complaing for no reason. Liar. You lied. Hganesan 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Where did I lie? Your "long history" includes 10 blocks by 6 admins over the last 3 weeks (since 16 May 2006). That's just for User:Hganesan and doesn't include any of the IPs you used. I don't think taking a week off means we should ignore that history. Simishag 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You lied because that is not my sockpuppet. How many in the last week liar? That guy is not me, you lied. My other sockpuppets were ALL IPs from berkeley, TWO WEEKS AGO. Liar. Hganesan 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Yeah and you also lied by saying my block was not up. It ended on the 29th, SEVERAL days ago. Another lie.Hganesan 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Simishag and his lies

He is continuously claiming User:Bucsrsafe is me when he is not. Please warn Simishag. I am very upset he is wrongly accusing me. Please tell the other admins about this. It is frustrating. He is just upset that there are people who want to get rid of the extreme nash bias on this site. I just logged on here for the first time in over a week and took time off, now I come back here and this guy is falsely accusing me. It is frustrating. Hganesan 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

YOU simi, tagged MY username and said I had abusive sockpuppets. That is why I tagged yours. I took OVER a WEEK off. Now you are accusing me again. There is no rude, uncivil behavior RECENTLY. Stop it. Face reality.Hganesan 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

BTW give me an example of uncivil behavior in my POSTS from today. you cannot. You and the others vandalized the entire steve nash page while i was gone. Now I'm back and you start accusing someone I don't even know of being a sockpuppet. BTW how many USERNAMES before this were accused of being sockpuppets of me?? NONE. I only have this ip and my username. I did not edit on this site here till today. You're lying and you know it. And he lied. MY block was already up. It has been OVER 1 WEEK, I just came back today. HganesanHganesan 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Plus the other guy has just been editing Steve Nash. And barely. I had edited a LOT more than that, like Kobe Bryant, ballhog, and the other articles. This is NOT ME. Simishag is LYING.Hganesan 21:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Neither of you are being civil, neither of your are calm. Do you actually want something done about this are you just going to argue with each other for a while? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I was uncivil (I disagree with that assessment, but okay). This is essentially a repeat of previous incidents involving User:Hganesan and suspected sockpuppets, beginning on 16 May 2006, and continuing every time he was unblocked. I don't really know what else to do other than post it here, as it's becoming a long-term issue. I do not believe this is a simple editing dispute; it's a repeated pattern of boorish behavior (rants, threats, vandalism, sockpuppets). I have never been accused of such in the year I've contributed here; he's been blocked 10 times (by 6 different admins) in the last 3 weeks, and he was even blocked from WikiEN-L. I stand by my work, and I think other editors and admins will support me on this one. Simishag 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right, you didn't seem to be uncivil. Sorry, I must have read it wrong. I really should be asleep now, oh well. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The guy Simishag is accusing of being my sockpuppet is NOT, I don't have any sockpuppets now. He is lying here, and is trying to get me blocked again. I was blocked over a week ago, and I just came back today and signed on. Then all of a sudden this guy just accused me. That other user is NOT me. Hganesan 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

You didn't answer my question. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing should be done about this complaint because it is an OUTRIGHT and OUTRAGEOUS LIE.Hganesan 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Calm and civil? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing everytime??? Do you notice I only went to those other ips when I was blocked??? Simishsag is lying. How many times have I been blocked in the last week and a half?? ZERO times. The last time I was blocked was may 21 or 22. Now it is June 3rd. History does not mean anything, I just got back here and started editing. He has no proof, only speculation. And school ended for me, so I am back at home now. I do not have access to other IPs, and that account was created while I was BLOCKED.Hganesan 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

You do realize that by insulting this user constantly here you're violating policy on a page read by dozens of admins? --InShaneee 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for another week. Will (^E_@) T 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

At some point, an indef block of the user as having exhausted the community's patience might be in order. I think the user can become a valuable contributor, and I think we ought to work with him toward that end, but the user seems unwilling or unable to comport his editing with our policies and guidelines (most notably, even irrespective of POV/OR issues, with respect to style and the necessity that one affect a formal tone) and certainly has had a deleterious effect on the articles he has edited. Once more, I don't think an indef block is now appropriate, and I am eminently confident that we can help the user to edit productively, but it should be noted that, thus far, his editing and presence, taken cumulatively, have been more disruptive than constructive. Joe 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about article analysis

I don't exactly know where to ask this sort of question, but........

Should this article be cleaned up, or should I tag it for AFD and place it in BJAODN?-- The ikiroid  21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean up and expand using info from here, for instance. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"We will drive you off Wikipedia"

I have indef-blocked User:WVTF for edits like this to users' pages and this little diatribe on his/her own page. Feel free to review... RadioKirk talk to me 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentioned, I don't recall where, something along the lines of Wikipedianism is emerging as a religion (italicized owing to this being a paraphrase). If this user was serious, here's a disturbing symptom of that. I think the indef-block was well earned by this user. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Unannounced(?) Curps vandal rollback bot

It is my conclusion, based on his contributions and recent nonsensical spree, that either Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has given up on sleep and good sense, or he is running an anti-vandal bot using rollback. To my knowledge this was never announced, let alone discussed, and it is clear from the spree linked above that it still has some kinks. Unlike tawkerbot2 (talk · contribs), these actions are not identified as bot edits and the scope of its operations do not seem to have ever been explained.

If it were not Curps doing this, I would have already blocked the account, but because of the long history and the other services Curps provides, I wanted to raise this issue here first. Dragons flight 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Curps' page move bot? That's been around for ages. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not page move. He appears to be doing vandal rollbacks with a bot as well. Dragons flight 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

God, I'm stupid. Sorry, I'm exhausted... yeah, that is a bit worrying. Perhaps we should block the account pending a response? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My first instinct was no, but on the other hand if Curps (the human) is around then a block would force a response, and he can be unblocked straight away. If it is an unauthorised bot, then it should be blocked. So go ahead (I'd do it, but I'm off very soon, and it wouldn't be fair for me not to be there to unblock if needed). Petros471 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him pending an explanation. As always, anyone can reverse it. Will (^E_@) T 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will reverse it, it doesn't seem to have done much in the hour prior to blocking so wasn't being disruptive as such and we know the general benefits, so short of a major malfunction blocking it would appear to be potentially more harmful than beneficial. --pgk^(talk) 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It also strikes me that Curps has been handing out an awful lot of blocks with the generic reason of "vandalism". If he is in fact using a bot to both rollback edits and autoblock certain editors, that strikes me as a more serious thing. Dragons flight 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that there are a lot of people handing out blocks with that same generic reason. --pgk^(talk) 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But to that extent? I mean, my initial response to this was going to be a link to my block logs to illustrate that I do as well, until I saw that. That is very generic. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, however the issue which prompted this, rolling back edits to Wikipedia didn't result in any blocks, which if you believe the rollback is automated (like other bots) suggests the blocking for same is not. --pgk^(talk) 00:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I am sooooo not thinking logically tonight. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 00:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if he is not autoblocking, and is only a single individual, then he seriously needs to sleep more. Between 9:47 May 7th and 1:00 May 10th, he issued 307 "vandalism" blocks with the largest gap between blocks was 2.1 hours. Between 10:03 April 19th and 1:00 May 10th, he issued 1452 "vandalism" blocks with no gaps larger than 4.4 hours and only 4 gaps larger than 4 hours. I don't know about you, but I need more sleep than that. Dragons flight 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Polyphasic sleep :) Will (^E_@) T 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Insomnia? (I got amnesia and insomnia mixed up before... guess we know who's the insomniac here). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Read Curps' user page to see how many people complain that he wrongly reverted their edits without reason. Curps's rampant blocking and reverting will drive away more editors than 10 Willy On Wheels. 70.48.250.130 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Curps' methods are (a) old news, and (b) the worst-kept secret on this entire project. I'd question the administrative credentials of anyone who was unaware of this. I'll bet dollars to donuts that is was due to some improperly encoded characters in the url, e.g. "�", which in many cases are indicative of a web proxy, as it's relatively difficult to type such characters accidentally using a normal keyboard. In fact, the IP address 67.15.151.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) does appear to be an open proxy:

22/tcp  open     ssh
23/tcp  open     telnet
25/tcp  filtered smtp
53/tcp  open     domain
80/tcp  open     http
135/tcp filtered msrpc
136/tcp filtered profile
137/tcp filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
443/tcp open     https
445/tcp filtered microsoft-ds

First of all, let's figure out whether the edit was, in general, worth a damn (I have no opinion), and correct the URL if necessary. — Jun. 4, '06 [05:06] <freak|talk>

Another update: the IP address resolves to UltraReach Internet Corp.^[88], which apparently distributes an anonymizing proxy client^[89] intended to help users scale the Great Firewall of China. Perhaps an indefinite rangeblock is in order. — Jun. 4, '06 [07:06] <freak|talk>

The gibberish seems to have been removed from the paragraph by User:Kotepho^[90]. — Jun. 4, '06 [05:23] <freak|talk>

Hey this is user:freakofnurture editing through ultrasurf, an open proxy. 67.15.183.5 07:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I confirm that the above edit was made by me, using the same anonymizing proxy. — Jun. 4, '06 [07:55] <freak|talk>

a) Giving a bot the ability to issue indefinite blocks based on its interpretation of vandalism is certainly not "old news" to me, and would seem to have a lot of potential to create collateral harm that I think should be discussed. If it has been discussed, fine, show me where. Otherwise, please avoid questioning mine or anyone else's "administrative credentials". b) The strange wikitext you point to is an unrelated bug in the ref code which has been discussed at VPT from a different context. Maybe that bug is triggering Curps's reverts, I don't know. And perhaps the IP actually is an open proxy. If so that is a seperate issue to deal with, but the fact that Curps is apparently continuing to extend the functionality of his admin bot without community input and notice is at least disrespectful and quite possibly dangerous. Dragons flight 06:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the logs, he may have been running the vandalism bot for ~6 months now, but unless it was actually mentioned somewhere, I would never have assummed that blocks issued as "vandalism" were being made by a bot. If so, I would assume it has been doing at least an okay job if it didn't create huge conflicts before now. However I am still unsatisfied by Curps' secretive methods and uninformative edit summaries. For example, the reversions by Tawkerbot2 seem vastly supperior to me than simply automating a rollback process. Dragons flight 06:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Curps' bot only blocked page-move vandals at first. Not too long after, his bot started blocking questionable usernames. Now, it seems that his bot does try to block other types of vandals as well. --Ixfd64 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that function has been around nearly as long as the pagemove part, and isn't a surprise (at least to me). There has also been considerable discussion about whether "user..." is an appropriate message to leave when a bot blocks a new account for having a bad username. Dragons flight 06:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that if bot continues running, its algorithm should be changed. For example, this user was blocked indefinitely after this edit (the only edit he ever made). I seriously doubt it's authorized by WP:BP. Conscious 06:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly, look at the other context surrounding that edit. That article was experiencing an attack by vandal sockpuppets all performing the same nonsensical edit, see history. — Jun. 4, '06 [07:01] <freak|talk>

Got it. Will try not to be silly. Will also try to be courteous. Conscious 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually the "silly" part isn't so much about what you did or didn't notice. It's about whom you choose to assume good/bad faith of, in the hypothetical situation of one piece of "evidence" existing in isolation. — Jun. 4, '06 [07:45] <freak|talk>

I agree that you're right and I should've looked into this better. Conscious 08:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I use "vandalism" as reason when blocking all the time. Also, considering how many times Curps blocks and rolls back in one day, I thought it would be obvious that no human was doing that. As for the edit above, look further into the article history - that was the sockpuppet of a vandal.--Shanel ^§ 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why Curps blocked Joshbuddy (a long-time and apparently good contributor), since the page moves he supposedly made didn't show up in his contributions. However, the move log shows a bunch of WoW type page names and moves. Unlike WoW, legitimate articles were not moved, just pages with names of "WoW test pageX", though. Is everybody starting to freak out and go on vandalism sprees? -- Kjkolb 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Josh was attempting to test an experimental tawkerbot feature, during the time that it appeared Curpsbot was offline. Apparently, he wasn't. — Jun. 4, '06 [08:11] <freak|talk>

So apparently Curps' bot is doing roughly the following things:

1. Page moves throttle: Detects a user moving pages beyond some rate threshold, issues an indefinate block with summary "page moves...", and posts a notice here at ANI.
2. Page move vandalism: Detects page moves to certain targets (e.g. Earth -> Earth on Wheels) as vandalism. Reverts the move and deletes the redirect.
3. User names: Follows the new users log and indefinately blocks users with names containing certain words (e.g. "vandal") or that use certain special characters. Block summary is "user..."
4. Rollback: Detects certain behaviors as vandalism and automatically uses rollback.
5. Vandalism blocks: Decides that some vandalism warrants a block summarized as "vandalism". Registered users triggering this are blocked indefinitely. Ordinary IPs are blocked for 24 hours and AOL IPs for 15 minutes. It appears that vandalism that triggers a block will be reverted, but that not all reverts trigger a block.

It is my intention to add a similar basic summary of Curps' functionality to WP:BOT. I'd also like to add it User:Curps, since each bot is supposed to give a description of what it does on it's userpage, but I don't know if we can agree on that as long as Curpsbot = Curps user. Personally, I'd strongly prefer that the bot edits and blocks be identified as belonging to a bot in the summaries or through a seperate bot account. In my opinion, having an undocumented bot masquadering as an administrator is antithetical to the open and transparent environment on which Wikipedia is built, even if the bot's actions are presumed to always be correct and effective. Dragons flight 10:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's more to it than that, but outlining all of it would not be in anybody's best interests, as it would detract from its usefulness. If you create something resembling a "WikiProject Curps", I'm pretty sure it will be deleted as WP:BEANS and WP:POINT. — Jun. 4, '06 [10:26] <freak|talk>

To be clear, I would intend to keep the description similar to the level given above. I am not trying to describe how it detects vandalism, etc., or give anyone a manual for avoiding it. However, if there are additional basic types of behavior that you are aware of, I would appreciate if you added them to the list. Dragons flight 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnes

At Talk:Barnes, a concern is raised about what seems to be an advertisement on the Barnes Page. I wasn't sure whether this is a problem, or what to do. Thanks Jfr26 00:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with on the article's talk page. Joe 03:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny things going on some articles of Roman antiquity (expert check please)

See [91]

I checked some of the other edits of Black Sword (talk · contribs)... couldn't find anything else particularily out of order, but the insertion of a third son of Lucius Julius Caesar II, with a name that has nothing to do with the Julii Caesares family ("Quintus Lutatius Catulus") is difficult to see as an "accidental" error. --Francis Schonken 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Stepp-wolf

I remember seeing something about this vandal fly by on ANI a while ago, but I'm not sure of the entire case. A couple days ago, I blocked a User:SS Stepp-Wulf for pretty typical immature vandalism, and then today I came across a User:Stepp-Wolf who was involved in mass image upload vandalism. I've now blocked both indef, but I'm assuming this is a lengthier and more complex case that I'm not entirely aware of. Apparently, indef-blocked User:ZeebotheClown is somehow connected to the Stepp-wolf vandals as well. Anyway, I intend to indef block any account with a similar username, and just wanted to make sure everyone knew about Stepp-wolf and was aware that he seems quite intent upon creating multiple sockpuppets for the purpose of vandalism. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I had at the same time a look at the same editor, and there seems to be several sleeper accounts that did pretty uch the smae thing shortly after each other. I feel that there need to be some more indef blocks for vandalism sockpuppets. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the Fall_Out_Boy history], the target, I think we might want to full-protect the page AND the image for a while. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've also full protected Image:Panic at the Disco promo.jpg, another target of the Stepp Wolfs, and removed a bunch of vandalism from its file history. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick (talk · contribs)

There was a very recent ANB/I discussion. It can be summarised with MONGO's comment

My inclination, along with Tony Sidaway, is that there is strong circumstantial evidence that Davebelle and Moby Dick are the same editor. I have reviewed the evidence posted and have discussed this matter with one other editor and I see a preponderance of evidence that indicates that not only has Moby Dick wikistalked User:Cool Cat, but User:MegamanZero as well, and that Moby Dick is a sockpuppet of Davenbelle.--MONGO 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick was overal warned not to continue stalking. Since the warning on 20 May by Tony Sidaway, Moby dick has:

...gotten involved with the poll on Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict (opposing me on all of the vote options)

...gotten involved with a cfd nom someone else started after I voted. Also being somewhat disruptive... --Cat out 04:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Among over 1.1 million articles I do not see how we can meet so frequently, given Moby had minimal edits.

--Cat out 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Without being familiar with this specific situation, I will say that it is not necessarily unusual that there will be many editors interested in and editing a handful of articles, given the subject matter, and it is not necessarily unusual that many of them will adopt the same stance on many issues. --bainer (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Earlier evidence points out the frquency (see this section on ANB/I archive) rather well. I do not believe all that is just random concidences. Am I supposed to get stalked another month before something is done? I am just uncertain of the procedure. --Cat out 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I still agree with my earlier assessment.--MONGO 10:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind, either. I believe Moby Dick is highly likely to be Davenbelle, even though for technical reasons it can't be proved 100%. On May 20, MD was formally warned by Tony Sidaway to "keep away, as much as is reasonably possible, from articles, talk pages and other pages edited by Cool Cat".[92]. This doesn't look a lot like keeping away. While there's possibly room for some doubt, both about the Davenbelle identification and the more recent stalking (there's no doubt at all about the stalking before the warning was issued), I think this is what we have an ArbCom for. You should take it directly to them. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

See this request for arbitration which I have just opened. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If required, I am most certainly willing to construct a statement on the arbitration page in view of this situation. -Zero^Talk 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:ZAROVE violating arbcom decision

Here's the arbcom page. Here's Zarove's edit, which he titled "GO AHEAD AND BAN ME FOR TWO WEEKS". ^^James^^ 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a page for this. There's a link to that page up the top of this one. Try there. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 11:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User puts shock picture on his user talk page

User:The Mad Bomber has put a hideously sick picture on the top of his user talk page. Warning: Do not go to that talk page unless you are very hard to gross out.

The picture has nothing to do whatsoever with his user page or Wikipedia. My guess is he put it there as a way to get back at anyone who would visit his talk page to lodge a complaint against him.

I don't know if a situation like this has a precedent. WP:USER does not specifically address this, although it does say user pages should not be used for things unrelated to Wikipedia, and that material can only remain on a user page with the "consent of the community." Help:Talk page points out that user talk pages are for communication between users, not for whatever The Mad Bomber is doing.

I posted a message of complaint on the talk page in question. The Mad Bomber responded by calling me a Nazi and calling the image "a beacon of free speach, sexual liberation, and equality."

I have no desire to return to The Mad Bomber's talk page to argue with him. But I would like some advice on what to do. Thanks -- Mwalcoff 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He appears to be using a public domain image from the article, Prince Albert piercing. Seeing as this image is part of the encyclopedia proper, and Wikipedia is not censored, he's not outwardly defying any policies. -- Longhair 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, adding it MediaWiki:Bad image list, similarly to such memes as Autofellatio_2.jpg would be an option, especially if he starts incorporating it into his signature. — Jun. 4, '06 [04:56] <freak|talk>

Well, I don't know about "hideously sick." This image, of a common male genital piercing, is used in article space. Clearly the user is just trying to be clever, but I don't see a big problem with it. Exploding Boy 04:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)FWIW, I think the locution hideously sick picture to be a breathless overstatement; I'm inclined to think that most, as I, won't be off-put in the least by its inclusion on Mad's talk page. Nevertheless, because it will likely offend some and thus disrupt the collaborative process on which the encyclopedia rests, the image should be removed. Free speech and sexual liberation aren't really the salient issues here; Wikipedia is not a venue for one to proselytize with respect free speech and sensibilities (which I note even as I think Mad and I are likely of one mind apropos of most issues), and, where one's comments/expressions with respect to off-Wiki issues disrupt the project, comments/expressions can and should be limited. Joe 05:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hyperbole. However, I'd support the addition of this image to MediaWiki:Bad image list per Freakofnurture, it seems to be consistent with the images already there. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that it has overexposed highlights but I think that is irrelevant to the discussion here. But it would be good to correct if an image of this sort is to be retained. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) While we do not have a specific policy forbidding PA's on talk pages, removing the image would be a cooperative and helpful thing for The Mad Bomber to do. It certainly does interfere with using his talk page to communicate with him. If people who do not care to view the image need to talk to him in the meantime, they may want to disable image loading in the Preferences or Options dialog for their browser. FreplySpang 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Grow up guys. I think it's beautiful, though a bit small and thin and I wouldn't do it to myself. Mccready 06:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us agree with you, as evidenced by the general rejection of the proposition that the image is particularly inflammatory. WP, though, is frequented by some who think differently, and the image is likely to prove disruptive to them if they should attempt to collaborate with Mad. Even as I have difficulty understanding why one would be disturbed by the image, I understand that some (possibly a good portion of regular editors) are disturbed, and, where there's no overarching encyclopedic purpose for its inclusion, it's likely better that the image be removed. As Freply notes, though, it'd be most decorous of Mad to do this himself. If he wishes to advance arguments with respect to free speech and gender equality, the community might, consistent with WP:USER, permit him to make such arguments on his userpage, provided that he otherwise contributes to the project, but disruption must be de minimis; for a community to exist, collaboration must be facilitated, but so must one's ability to let others know who he/she is, and text can serve each purpose in a fashion that the image cannot. Joe 06:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad the rest of you aren't as sickened by this image as I am. But as Joe points out, this is not an issue of censorship of indecency. I have nothing against people finding this image if they're looking for it. The problem is where the image is. This image will appear to people who have no expectation of seeing it. Assuming that I'm not the only person grossed out by the picture, it will discourage people from using the user talk page and, as Joe says, inhibit communication between The Mad Bomber and others. Oh, and we might have a policy for this already -- WP:DICK. -- Mwalcoff 15:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mad Bomber's behaviour is a little worrying. If he truly thought the picture was beautiful or important or some other real reason for having it there then he would respond accordingly. Instead he appears to be deliberately escalating things by have the picture appear multiple times on his talk page, by posting it on other people's talk page and by putting vandal notices on experienced editors talk pages because they removed it. Taking AGF to stretching point I have removed the duplicates but left the original (for now) asked him to explain why he wants the picture there and asked him not to engage in behaviours that serve to escalate rather than diffuse. Hopefully he will do the right thing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is such a blatant case of malicious editing that I've warned him he's in for a block if he continues. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Won't work. He would still be able to edit the talk page.Geni 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well at least it would prevent him from posting that image on other people's talk pages.[93] AnnH ♫ 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule usertalk pages should be safe for work. If they are not it reduces their usefullness.Geni 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions he appears to be GNAA. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivility User:ILike2BeAnonymous

You post a link to the National Review—and then have the nerve to go by the moniker of "Neutral arbiter"? What kind of bullshit is that?

Wait—I can answer that; just the garden-variety so-called "NPOV" bullshit, aka Randian objectivist bullshit (Jimbo Wales' bullshit POV, that is).

In any case, you'd be well-advised to read a real news report about the "incident", like this one. Oh, and have a nice day. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC) [94]

There is no reason for this kind of language on a talk page of an article.--Jersey Devil 07:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. He's been warned on it by others, including admins. And it's not the language, per se. It's the attack nature of the post. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 74.52.14.138

Anonymous user at 74.52.14.138 vandalised User talk:TruthbringerToronto TruthbringerToronto 08:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• He's repeatedly vandalized articles, mainly by blanking and replacing with "anal sex." See contributions. – Lunarbunny 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please report vandals to WP:AIV and then only once they have vandalized despite receiving a {{test4}} warning. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect (talk · contribs) POV pushing, edit warring, racist attacks

I try to avoid the word "POV pushing" but there is no other way to avoid it. The following are some of this users edits (most of which have been reverted for the same reason).

Norman Finkelstein Article-"anti-semetic, anti-western"..."claims to be the son of holocaust survivors" [95] [96]

Noam Chomsky Article-"anti Israeli anti Jewish anti Western" [97]

John Pilger Article-"Noam Chomsky, the far left anti American anti Israeli" [98] [99]

Talk:Palestinian people-uncivility and essentially racist remarks. [100]

R, your monologue above is exactly the reason that original research is not permitted in these articles. For all I know you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent (we certainly have had enough of those recently in many Western countries). I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality of having to live amongst a bunch of intolerant bloodthirsty Muslims (and those Christians probably exist), but it wouldn't be true. The whole point of Wiki is to have third party mainstream objective sources as the sole source of information. That will provide some validity to these articles. The fact that you (or I) don't like a particular point of view is something you or I might find disconcerting, but if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view. I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chommpsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article, I would just make sure that a view I considered more accurate was also cited. R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind. And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance, people want the right to make up their own mind. Observe the rules, post mainstream sources, suck it up when reading views you don't like, and you will be a good editor on this article.Incorrect 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [101]

I bolded that part because it was made after it was revealed that the poster, User:Ramallite, whom he was addressing was Palestinian. Calling a Palestinan wikipedian a possible "raving terrorist, out to kill Americans" is unnacceptable.

There is much more, just check out the user's contribution history.--Jersey Devil 09:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment on his/her talk page to refrain from adding these types of edits.--MONGO 11:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the last comment in particular warrants a temporary block. Of course, it is up to you guys to decide.--Jersey Devil 11:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if he/she chills out after my comment...if not, let us know.--MONGO 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add to this list edits at Presbyterian Church (USA). It's a bit over the top when you announce an article contribution together with a threat to edit war with anyone who reverts it. The contribution in question seems to be sourced only to opinion pieces and/or blogs. [102]

Please also note that it appears that Incorrect also occasionally edits as 63.205.151.68. KWH 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Striver (talk · contribs) WP:Spam

The user is spamming users to try and get a skewed vote to save his page from deletion [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108],

Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. WP:Spam#Internal spamming--Jersey Devil 11:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jgwlaw

Okay, this user in my opinion breached WP:NPA, WP:POINT and WP:3RR. I seeked the opinion of another admin, who blocked the user for 3 days. I am now currently being harassed by email... This includes a series of emails labled "You are labeling as an 'extremist group' a health forum of injured women." I have asked now 3 times for the said user to stop. Ian13/talk 12:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, emails seem to have stopped. Ian13/talk 13:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults (talk · contribs)

After making wild accusations on numerous pages, while misrepresenting my words, I amended my comment on his talk page with a strike trough to prevent him from continuing making misleading remarks.[109] However, this user forbids me to do so.[110] Is there any reason why I am not allowed to alter a comment? I see many people using strike through so why can't I? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I instructed the user to add a reply to his own comment if he feels it needs clarification. Since he has accused me of taking his words out of context, I believe they should stay exactly as originally posted. Posting a comment below the original statement to add clarification would be correct measure. People who visit the talk page will not know when the strike through was added, causing confusion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore the user is adding words not simply adding a strike through. Therefore its midleading, if Nescio would like to add a comment below the original stating what he meant to say, I would have no problem with that. However adding words is misleading. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation, I changed support for adding IP and initial for initial filing. Hardly a change in words. Can somebody review this users uncivil actions? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaks for itself [111] he added the words "adding new socks", please stop lying. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [112]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.20.59 (talk • contribs)

Quelle surprise, a Merecat sock comes to the rescue, you have outed yourself once again by referring to a common correction on WP I made. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)