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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Visual archive cue: 121

Community ban on User:Hogeye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning User:haham hanuka

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

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

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

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

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

From what I can see, the page was deleted through a regular procedure with which he agreed. In the meantime he has been blocked for a week for serious trolling on other AfDs. gidonb 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [5], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: [6]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --Leifern 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The ban was undone by User:Briangotts [7]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin [8], and substantially rewrote the article [9]. This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be Deir Yassin massacre. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Based on this, I reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this log for the moves in question. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A "watertight case"? Are you serious? All he did was illustrate a pov, its not like someone can say that hey you can't disagree with him, can;t you see that my side has already made a watertight case? Anyways it is irrelevent what the majority of people call the incident, what matters is that we chose a title that does not favor any pov, I am not saying that "battle of Deir Yassin" is completly npov I am just saying that the "Deir Yassin Massacre" really isn't npov either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll go ahead and move the page back, citing this discussion. Haukur 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, you might want to move protect the page after that to avoid a new move war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if someone else did that. Haukur 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe a move war is forthcoming Kim as long as you stay out of it. I reverted your initial move because of your completely unacceptable behaviour there. If Guy Montag's initial move was done without consensus, then it should have been reverted, and done so swiftly. You starting a poll on the matter, rejecting the legitimacy of the results when they failed to go your way, and then making an out of process move however, was farcical, especially given your current involvement in an ArbComm case on this very same matter. The move war was not the result the intractability of the issue, but rather a response to your complete lack of standing to make the aforementioned move. This entire move war could have been avoided if you had bothered to act in a way even vaguely resembling what is to be expected of admins. Protecting the page is thus likely unnecessary, as without your involvement in the move, I do not expect there to be serious objection to the page remaining there while debate continues on the talk page. Bibigon 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the important thing here is that KimvdLinde stays away from the situation completely. I would also suggest we try to find out what academic historians call it i.e. academics who are currently employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest this discussion not be split up. For some reason, it's been started on AN too. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know, I'm proposing to start a workshop along the lines of the ArbComm workshops to work through the specific policy issues involved (e.g WP:NC, WP:NCON, WP:NOR etc). The workshop will be at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop later today. Hopefully it'll help to identify the specific points of disagreement, provide some advice on what the policies and guidelines require, and focus the discussion on policies rather than personal POVs. I suggest we continue this discussion there. -- ChrisO 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you've protected the page against moves, and on the version you prefer. You're involved in the dispute and you're currently in front of the arbcom for using your admin powers in another content dispute. Please undo the protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it's inappropriate, please feel free to unprotect it. I've had no involvement in editing or moving the article, and my only involvement to date has been in providing pointers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, providing some data on usage and trying to help the parties to find a resolution. If you (or any other administrator) feel that makes me too close to the issue to legitimately move-protect the page, then please unprotect it. -- ChrisO 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you're involved in the dispute, and we're not allowed to use admin powers where we're involved, especially not to gain any kind of advantage, and given you suggested the page be moved back to the version you prefer, and then protected it, that's what you've done. I'm not prepared to unprotect it and be accused of wheel warring, so I'm requesting that you do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, OK. -- ChrisO 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope everyone will leave it where it is now until a consensus is reached. Your workshop idea is a good one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure I notify people when I've got the workshop prepared. You're very welcome to offer advice and views (on my talk page if you don't wish to get directly involved). Given your experience in dealing with controversial issues, I'd certainly value your advice on the policy issues. -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kim needs to "stay away from the situation completely", as Slim suggests, then so should Slim, myself and ChrisO. However, I don't see the point in delaying this - Guy Montag changed a long-established article name without consensus. His user page, User:Guy Montag identifies him as a supporter of the Irgun, the Revisionist Zionist armed militia identified as perpetrating the massacre so his interest in choosing an equivicating title for the article is clear. If a Stalinist tried to retitle "Katyn Forest Masscare" to "Battle of Katyn Forest" we would not permit it, even if he was able to rally the support of his friends in a poll. Homey 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to play that game with me. I have no involvement in this content dispute, and while I have no intention of becoming involved, I'm also not going to stay away from it because it would please you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a systemic POV when it comes to articles related to Israel so you are not neutral in this matter even if you haven't explicilty addressed content. I was not asking you to stay away from the article (you are projecting your habit onto me, it seems) - rather I'm saying you are in no position to dictate to Kim that she should stay away from it.Homey 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could the three of you please stop ragging on each other? It's incivil, inappropriate and definitely not in the right place. It's certainly not going to resolve anything! -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?

(Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F)

I'm rather troubled by the problems which KimvdLinde has reported over at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. As I've posted there, the article's current title of "Battle of Deir Yassin" violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:No original research (it's a novel term with negligible use outside Wikipedia - only 81 hits versus over 21,000 for the alternative "Deir Yassin massacre"). It also probably violates Wikipedia:NPOV, as it seems to be a novel and minority-POV term for an historical incident which is generally known by a different name. (It's comparable, for instance, to renaming Srebrenica massacre to "Battle of Srebrenica" or American War of Independence to "War of American Aggression".)

In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and, unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.

Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? Kim Bruning 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've found in instances like this (Republic of Macedonia comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Wikipedia policies. -- ChrisO 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors don't care about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- ChrisO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as WP:NOR. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bruning is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the The Wrong Version is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend.  : - ) FloNight ^talk 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge the interested editors to have a look for themselves at the ArbCom case before the decide what is going on. I am not going to drag the extended discussions from there to here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde at venus I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Wikipedia. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. FloNight ^talk 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I share your opinion about "the wrong version". -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is a misrepresentation. Slim is one of the admins against whom sanctions are being proposed - Fred Bauder proposed a one month ban - there have been no action proposed against Kim, nor is she accused of having participated in the wheel war that has gotten Slim in trouble. Homey 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, quit it. You and Kim van der Linde have caused the entire dispute at Israeli apartheid, and you kept it going at maximum heat and intensity, because that's how you get your kicks at Wikipedia. I've never seen such disregard for the rules about using admin tools between the pair of you. The evidence hasn't yet closed, by the way, and I'm not going to argue it out with you here, because it would make your day. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you brought up the arbcomm case and misrepresented it by claiming that Kim was "central" to it while you are "barely involved" when in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't. As for "disregard for the rules about using admin tools", you are the one who participated in a wheel war, not Kim (or myself) so stop deflecting (or projecting). Homey 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't

Are you serious? I'm sure that not even you can actually believe that that makes sense, You proposed a bunch of wierd and inappropriate "solutions" that nobody supported and then you claim that that shows that Slim is more involved with the dispute than you or Kim. The fact that there isn't a bunch of stupid proposals involving you and kim really just shows that other people aren't as spiteful or inappropriate as the two of you. I guess the fact that there is nothing on that page that explicity calls for your adminship to be taken away and for you to be banned must show that you are a completely neutral and uninvolved party or at least that you did nothing inappropriate at all in that conflict, is that right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this really is my last comment. No sanctions have been proposed against Kim because no evidence has been put up about her yet. Only half the evidence is in, Homey. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Homey, please lay off. Ragging on SlimVirgin only gets us deeper. Fred Bauder 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 for acting like WP:TROLLs. I had lodged a previous report on ANI[15] that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on Talk:Sikhism, Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of user:Sukh. These users have spoken offensively to user:Sukh, User:Rajatjghai, user:Gsingh and myself.

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

user:ARYAN818

Relevant Diffs (most recent):[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33]

Relevant Diffs (continuous):[34], [35],[36],[37], [38],[39]

user:Elven6

Relevant Diffs (most recent): [40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50]

Previous Report (continuous):[51], [52], [53],[54]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His articles of interest (and manner of edit warring) lead me to believe that he is not a neo-Nazi. While this can also be easily faked, his name in the email address he used to write to the unblock mailing list also had "Aryan" as a first name. Maybe he should be blocked for edit warring, but I don't think he should be indef blocked unless he shows more serious behaviour. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis use the code number "88" ("HH" = "Heil Hitler". This is a clearly inappropriate user name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Chinese people use "88" as a good luck number. I've seen plenty of people with "88" at the end of their user name (I mean email address and user names outside of Wikipedia, I don't know anyone here IRL), and they're about as Neo-Nazi as I am. I'd never heard of this 88=HH="Heil Hitler" stuff until here (and as a side rant, Buddhists can't show a certain religious symbol because of the damn swastika). And he's not 88, he's 818. Look, I'm not saying that it's not serious, but there is such a thing as too sensitive. This guy is an edit warrior, sure, but looking at his edits, he doesn't strike to me as a neo-Nazi (at least, not yet). That means that he's certainly a good recipient of a block if he's a persistent edit warrior, but it'll take more evidence to indef-block him for having a neo-Nazi username. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this had been pointed out already, but in the same way that 88 means HH, 818 means HAH, or Heil Adolf Hitler. And there's the tiny matter of the fact that the code is preceded by the word Aryan. If his username was CuteFluffyKitten818 it might be different, but it's not. The claim that it's a common name sounds fishy to me - I've never heard of anyone called 'Aryan', and after going through two disambig links I only managed to find a single person called 'Arya'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's the first time I've had that explained to be, and thanks for that. Man, there's a code for friggin' everything these days. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a tough username issue. I appreciate the argument of ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) regarding his user name (on User talk:ARYAN818). I saw the name on RC patrol a while ago, and was about to indef block for username, but after reviewing contribs, I'm pretty sure he's not making a neo-Nazi reference -- Samir धर्म 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I will study the matter and shall offer my comments within two to three days. Prima facie, I find that the two users concerned do not care for the guidance and comments of fellow-wikipedians. This is not a good sign. --Bhadani 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Being referred to by name again

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

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

User RJ evading ban

Warning: Due to the complexity of this case the following entry is not concise. My apologies.

Background Information

This notice concerns RJII, a user who has been banned indefinately for a series of wiki violations and his own eventual admission of intent to abuse. Vision Thing is a user whose first edit occured on March 19, 2006. Because his first edit was to immediately initiate a discussion on a topic which had recently been the focus of user RJII, he was soon accused by user AaronS of being a sockpuppet. User Infinity0 also suspected Vision Thing of being a sockpuppet, and requested a checkuser. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the RJ "project", as user Logical2u said on the checkuser page, "all accounts by the RJII "team" will likely be undectable and un-check-user-verifiable, due to "home" computers, etc."

Due to lack of evidence from usercheck, the case appears to have been dropped. However, I believe that subsequent edits by user Vision Thing have more than demonstrated, via circumstantial evidence, his intimate connection to RJII. Unfortunately this is the only kind of evidence that could be applied to this case. I have compiled an extensive list of identical edits made by user RJII and Vision Thing. Please note that in my time searching dozens of articles edited by these two accounts I never found a single instance in which either editor reverted or even openly disagreed with one another, despite a tendency by both accounts to engage in edit wars and reverts. When I eventually became certain of Vision Thing being a sockpuppet I attempted to inform twice. Despite making several other edits on his talk page in the meantime, both my attempts remain ignored.

Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user

As evidence I would first like to note RJII's repeated insistance on indicating that the writers of the anarchist FAQ are "social anarchists". This is the very topic that Vision Thing first used as a subject of his first edit. The similarity of their edits can be seen from these examples by RJ,

• 27 March RJ, 30 March, 3 April, 8 April, 26 April

which can be compared with this edit by Vision Thing after RJ was banned: 9 July

Such instances are not isolated. For example, RJ and Vision Thing inserted the same edits concerning David Friedman on medieval Iceland:

• 24 April RJ
• 25 April Vision Thing
• 26 April RJ

Vision Thing has made many of the same edits that RJ was formally known for inserting since RJ's ban. Benjamin Tucker's "capitalism is at least tolerable" is a quote originally introduced into several articles by RJ:

• 20 May, 20 May

After RJ's ban it has been inserted into articles by Vision Thing in his place: 15 July

Individualist anarchism "reborn", is another quote originally inserted by RJ into the anarchism article:

• 23 June

has since been championed by Vision thing after RJs ban:

• 15 July, 3 July

Way back in January of 2005 RJ started posting many edits about the "U.S. Postal Service monopoly"

• 11 January

not surpirsingly, after RJ was banned nearly identical edits started coming from Vision Thing

• 3 July

And yet another instance, before his ban RJ inserted the following edit into Anti-capitalism: 15 June After RJs ban Vision Thing once again inserted an identical edit: 25 June

These articles and edits are only a small sample, constrained due to my limits on time. Here is a partial list of more articles that each has contributed to, often making the same or very similar edits. Please feel free to look through them to get an idea of the similarity in tone, style, and point of view: An Anarchist FAQ, Economics of fascism, Anarcho-capitalism, Bryan Caplan, Laissez-faire, Capitalism, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism in the United States, Template:Socialism, Criticisms of socialism, Talk:Wage labour, Collectivism, Anti-capitalism, Corporatism, Friedrich Hayek, United States Postal Service, Mixed economy, Free market, Property, Altruism, Natural rights, Negative and positive rights, List of anarchists.

In fact, the total number of edits to pages they hold in common is far greater than those to pages they do not. Yet, despite the fact that these two seem to have identical interests, edits, and political viewpoints, they have never engaged in so much as a "hello", with their only contact being to support one another on arbitration issues or deny that they were the same person.

Evidence of violation of wiki policy by Vision Thing beyond circumventing ban

To my knowledge use of a sockpuppet to circumvent a ban is a violation of wiki policy in itself, however I believe there is plenty of evidence that this sockpuppet is also a violation of the rules on:

• voting (as mentioned above)
• and Creating the illusion of broader support [55], [56]

RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account

It is important to note that when faced with a ban RJ eventually admitted what had previously been obvious to many, that his intent was to use "...advanced techniques of psychological warfare... most importantly, most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection). Hence, the RJII account served largely to wear particular individuals down, pyschologically, who were judged to be enemies."

In admits again to having multiple sockpuppets already prepared and engaged in wikipedia, "In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia... It is safe now for us to divulge that some of the sockpuppets will continue editing Wikipedia until at least the end of the year."

The edits of RJ and Vision Thing are so nearly identical, and so obviously from the same narrow POV, that it can't helped but be felt that RJIIs intent to be "successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally)" is being carried on via the account of Vision Thing. Circumstantial evidence is never certain, but I believe this is as much evidence as one could provide given the difficulty in tracking down all the sock puppets employed by RJIIs account. In the unlikely case that the circumstantial evidence I have compiled does not remove doubt that Vision Thing is a sock puppet of RJ he is at least a Meat Puppet (perhaps in the form of banned user Hogeye who worked closely with RJ in the past). Regardless, Vision Thing is clearly carrying out RJs explicitly stated goals of disrupting wikipedia and gaming the system. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. I would tend to concur with you. However as you said, this cannot be proven. I suspect the only thing that can be done in this case is to go through the dispute resolution process and get a similar result to that which was meted out to RJII. You could use the previous two ArbCom judgements against RJII as precedent. - FrancisTyers · 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that in any case, RJII also appears to be using a series of throwaway accounts to avoid detection. Accounts like User:Antitrust and User:C-Liberal which were registered since he vanished, made a couple of edits (only two in Antitrust's case) to keep his preferred versions in place, and then promptly disappeared seem like classic socks to me. --Aquillion 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the assumption, but nothing can be proven. If his words are any indication, RJII would thrive on this kind of speculation. I'd rather not give him that satisfaction. He can play with this until he's 80 years old, for all I care. I might suggest some professional help, though. --AaronS 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add to the above: CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs), who, somewhat comically, was blindly reverted by Lingeron (talk · contribs) in this edit, where Lingeron reverted three days of edits by ten different people to revert to a version by Vision Thing. Even if we don't assume that Antitrust (talk · contribs), C-Liberal (talk · contribs), and CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs) are RJII, it can probably be taken as a given based on usernames and contributions that those three are all one user... and I cannot think of any compelling reason why a user would run through three accounts in such a short time unless they were trying to avoid detection. --Aquillion 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also TheIndividualist (talk · contribs). The Ungovernable Force 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can a user deny an unblock?

Can an normal user deny an unblock if it's an obvious no?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea, except in the case of someone not giving IP address or autoblock information, who isn't blocked by name. Then, you could leave {{autoblock}} there and remove the request. I think otherwise, it's important that at least someone who can unblock takes a look. Mangojuice^talk 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about in cases where someone puts an unblock template on a user/IP that isn't blocked at all?--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a user or IP and they aren't blocked (or haven't been blocked in a long time), leave the {{autoblock}} message, if they didn't leave the block message. I guess it's also okay in cases where the block shows up but has already been undone or has expired. If you guys want to help, actually, one thing that would be very helpful is to go through the Reviewed requests for unblock, and remove tags that are old or for which the block has expired. The {{unblock reviewed}} template says that the request continues to be visible, but that really isn't true if most of the requests are out of date. Mangojuice^talk 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why not, generally non-admins can do anything which don't require the admin buttons close RFAs AFDs which are keeps, detag speedies which aren't really speedies etc. --pgk^(talk) 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected RFA --> AFD, as I'm sure that's what Pgk meant, and I *really* don't want to have to deal with the effects of what a misreading of the statment could do at RfA. Essjay (Talk) 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, better than that, has an anon ever tried to close an RfA? I'm sure it would be User:69.145.123.171 if ir was anyone...... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal......I won't make any block decisions unless I become an admin, it's not in my power to unblock or protect a talkpage from attacks if the user goes bad. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I posted a couple denials:

1. Case 1: Vandal continued to vandalize articles, after test4, I requested an admin to block, and I posted the blockmessage. When the user requested an unblock, I contacted the admin who performed the block and decided to deny the unblock, so I responded to the unblock request.
2. Case 2: User requests unblock multiple time while I and admins are on rcpatrol. I report the unblock request reason, they deny it, and I post the unblock deny on that user's talkpage on behalf of the admins. This case was brought up in my RfA.

I'd say, the best course of action would be to play it safe and only do so if you have an admin backing you up and willing to vouch for the unblock deny on your behalf. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing own material in which financial interest exists

On the Attachment Therapy page user JeanMercer continues to add as a reference a book she wrote with two others, Sarner and his spouse, Rosa. Mercer receives royalties for this and is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which financially benefits from the book sales. She has been warned once about this and I put a note on her talk page as a second warning. I'd appreciate your advice and interventionn here. RalphLender 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form, but is it against policy? How is the book regarded by others? Would it ever be cited by someone not involved with it? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's self-published (or otherwise small circulation), it's not considered a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not self-published, but was brought out by Praeger, an imprint of Greenwood. This is an academic press that provides initial expert review, developmental review, and professional editing services. Jacket comments were provided by Elizabeth Loftus and Frederick Crews, and there is a series forward by Hiram Fitzgerald of the World Association for Infant Mental Health (the series was Child Psychology and Mental Health). This book was cited by the APSAC task force in 2006 with respect to the use of Attachment Therapy. However, as is the case for many serious books, the royalties have been very small-- I would suppose each author has realized no more than $200 from the book in the three years it has been out, rather less than it took to prepare the ms.. This is in fact the only single publication that gives a thorough analysis of the topic, and that is why I cite it.

I could, of course, avoid being the subject of such complaints if I did not reveal my identity, but I consider it important for people to know who is speaking about a subject so relevant to the well-being of children and families.

Incidentally, I applaud the distinction made by InShanee between self-published and other material, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that today there are a number of what one might call "printer-ready publishers" who provide none of the services of a company like Praeger, but permit authors to avoid having their work tagged "self-published." Such publishers add complexity to the existing problem of identifying authoritative information without careful reading and analysis.Jean Mercer 13:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This belongs on the article discussion page, not ANI. Phr (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tribalwar AFD Page

Has gotten lots of hit with personal attacks -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tribalwar -- and has nothing to do with the subject matter. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend the personal attacks be removed, but would rather have clearnce to proceed. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty grotesque. There has been a huge influx of red accounts and IP's, all showing up in an instant and uttering nonsense. I'm not sure that anyone will be able to close the thing and feel secure about the decision, so I'd guess that DRV will be necessary. At any rate, actual personal attacks can be stricken through (the old <s> </s> tags), as that leaves them where they are but shows that the remarks are clutter and insults. Geogre 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nasty business, though inevitable - after all, it was nominated by a Wikipedia user with some sort of previous personal dispute with some (possibly many) of the forum members (see here and here). Nothing good was ever going to come of this - in fact, I suspect the only reason the AfD hasn't been closed as bad-faith is either that the editor is sufficiently well-established to get away with it, that the admins reckon a reasonably proper AfD process can still be salvaged from this mess (and I hope it's this one), or that no-one has noticed yet. - makomk 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If this were to be reviewed once more. All you need to do is check the history to see what is going on. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Bonnieisrael

I'd appreciate another administrator stepping in here. Ever since I took a hard line against User:Israelbeach, I have been targetted by his sockpuppets and friends both on and off the wiki. Israelbeach crossed the lines and is effectively under community ban, but his puppets are still allowed to edit. user:Bonnieisrael is now trying to engage me in another personal edit war. As in: [57] Which I foolishly corrected: [58] And was of course reverted: [59]. I know I have a part in this too, but I'd like to point out Bonnieisrael's history. She was blocked by Slimvirgin as a suspected sockpuppet of Israelbeach, for this sort of behavior and worse. She was unblocked by Jredmond. Jredmond promised Slimvirgin to keep an eye out [60], Slimvirgin said she would reblock Bonnieisrael for continuing this kind of behavior [[61]. Bonnieisrael has since contributed almost nothing but more Israelbeach-type edits. Jredmond has ignored my protests about Bonnieisrael's continued disruptive editing [62]. I'd also like to point out that as an administrator, I could easily block any one of Israelbeach's sockpuppets myself, and I believe I would by fully justified in doing so - but I excercise restraint because I am personally involved. I count on other administrators to use clearer judgment. But mostly I think other administrators can't be bothered to check what these sock/meatpuppets are up to. --woggly 05:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about the rest of your dispute, but generally it's considered more polite to dispute someone's claim by replying to it saying "That's wrong" than to edit their claim to what you think is correct. --Improv 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And this my impropriety was the only aspect anyone thought worth responding to. Fine. I'm sure Israelbeach will be happy to continue populating Wikipedia with his sockpuppets, including the new baby: User:Jerusalemrose, and make many useful contributions to his self-promotion campaign wikipedia. I will no longer stand in his way. Heaven forbid, I might be tempted to be impolite again. --woggly 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Woggly, I've left a note for Jredmond, [63] as he should deal with it in the first instance as the unblocking admin. Please keep me posted, so I know that it's being looked into. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked her indefinitely; on top of her continued involvement in that whole mess, her other contribs have been POV/copyvios/both. I expect Jimbo and/or OTRS will hear about this, but after blowing her second chance I don't expect she'll receive much sympathy.

(Sorry about the delay, Woggly, but I haven't had much time for Wikipedia recently [as evidenced by my contribs].) - jredmond 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

2007-07-21 SPUI

SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone off the deep end. S/he's been edit warring on Freeway-related topics all month. There was the WP:POINT move of Freeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Highway with full control of access and no cross traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That took weeks to fix (that was prior to my involvement).

But today, s/he's gone hog-wild WP:POINT creating:

• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and
• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

And making hundreds of re-categorizations. Categories take even longer to fix than mere moves.

After losing the renaming of Category:Freeways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Limited-access roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and then losing the July 1 CfD to rename it back, a Deletion review, a re-listing for more comments, and losing the CfD relisting, and on the way to losing another Deletion review. I've posted two notices at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, should I make it 3, 4, 5?

Please stop this quickly, it's gotten ugly!

--William Allen Simpson 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is too complex for me to feel comfortable doing anything about, since I have no previous knowledge of this issue. However, a quick glance at the block log shows quite a colorful history. If there really was ill behavior here, I would suggest a somewhat long block - probably at least a week- as there sure seems to be a history of other disruptive behavior. Friday (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See the arbitration case from a couple weeks ago (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways). I recommend an immediate block to stop further damage if the editing is still in progress; decide afterwards how long to make it. Phr (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no "ill behavior" here. Most people in the deletion discussion begun by William do not wish to see these categories deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Still you can't deny you've made disruptive edits to some of these pages in the last 4 days all in violation of your probation. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do deny that. Not that you'll change your mind based on said denial. --SPUI (T - C) 20:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Repeatedly deleted the speedy deletion tags on the 4 categories, followed by {hangon}, gaming the 3RR.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65092468&oldid=65088300
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65096312&oldid=65094565
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65106914&oldid=65097292
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65109444&oldid=65108412
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65092502&oldid=65088398
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65096307&oldid=65094639
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65106904&oldid=65097342
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65109433&oldid=65108477
• etc.

  --William Allen Simpson 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal SPUI edit warring continues at Limited-access road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

--William Allen Simpson 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple removal of uncited material that has been uncited since I tagged it about a week ago. --SPUI (T - C) 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal SPUI edit warring continues at Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada, where none of the subcategories or articles applies. According to their own main articles, these are expressways and controlled access roads, and therefore do not have "no cross traffic". For example, Ring Road (Regina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has signals at railroad crossings.

--William Allen Simpson 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

William has added improper speedy deletion templates to the categories several times, and has tried to empty Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada. --SPUI (T - C) 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether WAS is right or wrong as I think it could go both ways. However what is a fact despite your denial is that you've been edit warring with him. That is disruption. Disruption is an immediate block per yours and my probations. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked William Allen Simpson for personal attacks for repeatedly referring to SPUI as "Vandal SPUI". That's unacceptable. More explanation on William's talk page. --Cyde↔Weys 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ill-advised words, sure, but a blockworthy personal attack? A warning first sure wouldn't have hurt. Friday (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That was inexcusable language. A three-hour cooler sounds sensible here. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait. You guys block WAS for being mildly uncivil yet don't block SPUI for two days worth of shirking his ArbCom imposed probation which specifically forbids edit warring on highway articles and incivility, both of which he was proven to have done??? How the hell does that work? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(ec) He's been blocked so many times he's got more than one page of block log. Is referring to him as "vandal" THAT unreasonable? I'm all for being very conservative with the use of that word, but let's be reasonable. Friday (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the block of William Allen Simpson. He is clearly out of control on this issue (unlike SPUI) and needs a breather. If he doesn't tone down the unwarranted rhetoric, he will find himself getting longer blocks. SPUI has a checkered history on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean he's fair game. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

None of SPUI's blocks are for vandalism, so yes, referring to him as a vandal is entirely unreasonable. SPUI may have some problems dealing with content disputes, but he does a lot of good work and he's certainly no vandal, and I know he doesn't appreciate being called one. --Cyde↔Weys 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

He's continued - "I was not able to assist you, as SPUI had his chat friends block my account for reporting his repeated vandalism at WP:ANI, the usual place for reporting vandalism." --SPUI (T - C) 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin/B

This list User:Kelly Martin/B is of a concern to me. It appears to be a list of a group of users who have little in common other than that, as far as I can tell, all of us found ourselves in opposition to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2 for one reason or another. That the administrator largely responsible for the creation of this page stated that its purpose was "It is used by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes" [64], so I can only conclude that its sole purpose is to harass and/or intimidate those with whom this administrator disagreed about the RFA in question. BigDT 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have now listed this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Please feel free to help build a consensus there as appropriate. BigDT 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice guess, but it actually has nothing to do with Sean Black's RFA. That's an interesting correlation you pointed out, though ... Cyde↔Weys 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL nevermind, it got a lot bigger since the last time I looked at it :-P Check the page's history though, it's been around since before Sean Black's RFA. --Cyde↔Weys 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And it just got a lot smaller since I last looked, Cyde just deleted it. Meh. the wub "?!" 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I was also going to post that the page has now been deleted by Cyde. I would still like to know what the intentions were. Refusing to say what it is for and deleting it as soon as anyone outside of your clique finds out about it hampers my ability to assume good faith. -BigDT 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that people are poking around in my userspace. The purpose of that page is to benefit my ability to make decisions in the best interest of Wikipedia. Just a way of keeping track of people that's more reliable than my memory -- there's a lot of Wikipedians these days and I find that I can no longer manage everything in my head. All it takes to get on there is doing anything that makes you stand out to me -- good or bad, it doesn't matter; being included there doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or anything; it's just a list. I deliberately created it in my user space and at an out of the way location so that it wouldn't be disruptive, but of course someone had to go and make trouble about it. Nice show, people. I suppose I'll move it to my own wiki (which is closed, and I don't give out passwords to many people) where I don't have to worry about people messing with it. Even better, I can put it in a special locked namespace where none of you can see it, either. You should have stopped while you were ahead..... Kelly Martin (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly why not just recreate it? There was no basis for the deletion of it and it can be easily restored through proper channels. I'm confused as to why it was deleted in the first place. Having a list of users isn't against any rule. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Recreating it will just disrupt Wikipedia further. If I maintain this list off-wiki, I won't have to deal with the howling -- or at least can ignore it more readily. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the explanation you gave for it on IRC. I don't think this after the fact misrepresentation of what the list was for is really helpful. --W.marsh 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. I can't believe we're even having this conversation. You created a list of names that apparantly was based on people you and others had disagreed with. You refused to say what it was for - simply giving a reasonable explanation would have sufficed. When you get caught, somehow it's our fault for "poking around in your user space", whatever that means. Still, rather than provide an explanation, Cyde removes the list. Calling it a list of people that stand out good, bad, or indifferent sounds dubious considering that (1) there were multiple substantial contributors to the list and (2) you added a large block of names from Sean's RFA. Now, you play the "drama queen" card of taking your football and going to your own secret wiki. Honestly, this behavior disturbs me. If everything you were doing was above board, then you would not at all be upset at discussing your actions. BigDT 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No cookies for you this year at Christmas. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just as well ... I need to cut down anyway ... BigDT 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all entitled to know what this is all about. I see other admins adding names to this secret list in user space, then deleting the list (including User:Cyde with the summary "Kill everything"?), and then see my name on it. What is going on? -- Samir धर्म 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so secret that she put it in her userspace. Henry^Flower 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 23:11, 21 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
2. 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Kill MFD)
3. 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (rm. another self-add)
4. 18:08, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Nope, you need to earn it.)
5. 18:06, 21 July 2006 . . W.marsh (Talk | contribs | block) (I want in!)
6. 17:51, 21 July 2006 . . BigDT (Talk | contribs | block) (+mfd1)
7. 17:45, 21 July 2006 . . The wub (Talk | contribs | block) (seems like a nice bunch, I want in)
8. 13:54, 21 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add many)
9. 15:04, 20 July 2006 . . SPUI (Talk | contribs | block) (apparently I can help by expanding it?)
10. 14:20, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+2)
11. 12:11, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (oh, that. So what? I'm entitled to my opinion, no?)
12. 10:17, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (why)
13. 08:16, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (ehh... what did I do?)
14. 18:39, 17 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Add one)
15. 12:45, 14 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
16. 22:57, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (1)
17. 13:25, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (-rfaf, +humor)
18. 11:49, 12 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
19. 09:58, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
20. 09:57, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
21. 10:38, 5 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
22. 12:41, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
23. 11:30, 3 July 2006 . . Sean Black (Talk | contribs | block) (yeah...)
24. 11:17, 3 July 2006 . . Phil Boswell (Talk | contribs | block) (Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)…or should we use ?)
25. 11:12, 3 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block)
26. 02:03, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block)

That's very intimidating intimate, and yet ever so participatory! I'm honoured to grace the list. I think! *Kisses* El_C 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am told I was listed on here, don't I have a right to know what it is? Computerjoe's talk 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that's creepy. I appeared on 6 of July, apparently after my vote on User:Mboverload's RfA. User:Gurch who voted "per me" was added shortly thereafter. I definitely don't like the smell of it.  Grue  13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Friendly Assume Good Faith reminder! Contributors to this mysterious subpage should not assume objectors are "making trouble" and that hiding it in some other place somehow hampers the objectors. They should also realize that people like to see who is linking to their user pages, that such curiosity is perfectly normal, and that an unannotated and apparently random list would obviously stand out as a curiosity. Objectors should accept the contributors' explanations at face value unless evidence to the contrary is presented. The idea that this list is just a list of "people of interest" is at least plausible. =) Powers 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that no explanation has been given. If Kelly, Cyde, and others would give an explanation, I would be willing to accept it. BigDT 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to WP:AGF when one administrator suggests using a {{vandal}} template for the people on the list AND another uses the words "kill everything" in the summary to delete the list. -- Samir धर्म 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If this list really is no big deal, why can't it just be explained? Clearly, we're all itching to know. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Probably a "Christmas gift" that we can expect after this RfA. ;) - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Man, not even 3000 edits and I'm blacklisted. Argh. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, I see you are proposing to move this list to your own server. If this is based in the UK, it may be subject to the Data Protection Act; and if in the EU, various directives limiting the use of personal information. Personally, I will assume good faith. If the reason I am on the list is because someone disapproves (or approves for that matter) of something I said, they are welcome to comment on my talk page. Everyone is open to reason, if you catch the right moment. Stephen B Streater 09:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sakes. Really. This is way past the threshold of ridiculous and is now firmly in the territory of the absurd. You're quoting British laws at her?! Ahahahahahaha. --Cyde↔Weys 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have misconstrued the purpose of my comment. Stephen B Streater 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I see enough people I respect on the list to take my inclusion as a compliment. I do wonder why I'm a Q1 on this list though. What could it all mean? -- Avenue 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No idea. I see that W.marsh is listed under BBQ. I strongly suspect that we've crossed the line into parody. Regarding your inclusion, clearly it's a bad pun (Avenue Q). Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • BBQ? I want in on the LB (Light Brunch) list wherever that is. --Alf ^melmac 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• OK, fess up, how many of you have a /B page? I have one. NoSeptember 14:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Me too, but at least I was smart enough to make it inaccessible to everyone else. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Funny, I can view what's there ;) NoSeptember 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, having such a list of users is very poor taste. I can't think of any "decision-making processes" using current mechanisms which would necessitate lists of users by certain criteria. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this all blew up and blew away over the weekend, and I opposed Sean Black's RfA and am curious, could someone tell me if I was/am/will be on this list? -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, thanks, someone filled me in that I was/am. I'm disappointed in Kelly's choice to take this "off-wiki" and refusal to answer simple questions about the intent of such a list. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list before it was deleted. I am on it, as are several other admins who opposed SB's RfA. I am appalled. Jonathunder 16:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Micoolio101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M. Burmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SirGrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ClemMcGann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jtdirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juppiter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Splash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xoloz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DragonWR12LB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• mboverload (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) • [65]
• Splash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rossami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dragon695 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Haukurth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SatyrTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sockenpuppe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A. B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AaronS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abcdefghijklm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aguerriero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhadani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BigDT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blnguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bucketsofg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Computerjoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deon555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dlyons493 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• El C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eluchil404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Erik the Rude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Goldom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grace Note (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grandmasterka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guinnog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Idont Havaname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JJJJust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonathunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kinneyboy90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Knowledge Seeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Matt Yeager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nae'blis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OwenX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paolo Liberatore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Petros471 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RandyWang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RFerreira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samir (The Scope) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samsara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shizane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Silensor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simetrical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stephen B Streater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Terence Ong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Themindset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thumbelina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tintin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WillMak050389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zaxem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<list snipped, it makes ANI much longer and is totally unnecessary, it's already reproduced elsewhere in userspace> --Cyde↔Weys 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I put the list back (above). It belongs here as it is the entire point of discussion. Also, if it is reproduced somewhere else already, please provide a link. Just cutting it from here, not showing where it is reproduced, and fully knowing that nonadmins can't see deleted text appears to me as something to hide, or either way, not a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history of this list, I see that most names, including mine, were added after we Sean Black's RFA. Is this an "enemies list" of people to settle scores with? Jonathunder 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what this list was for, but I think it was shockingly clueless of the people involved in making it to put such an unexplained list of editors on-Wiki, delete it when it attracts attention, and then refuse to really talk about its purpose, unless their goal is to create drama. If that was the intent, well-done, otherwise, that was dumb as hell, guys. If this was an "in-joke", or whatever, it was bungled and turned into a disruption by serious cluelessness on the part of those "in" on the joke. Sometimes, Kelly impresses me with her good judgement. This isn't one of those. On the other hand, her reaction of clamming up when the drama starts, instead of defusing it with candid openness, reminds me of Kelly in early January, so I guess that's not surprising. Why not try a different approach to controversy, Kelly? You like drama? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now there's a new version at User:Kelly Martin/Q and if this keeps up, I will seriously reconsider whether I want to stay involved around here. Jonathunder 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, but I can't help but think that everything is being seriously overblown. I wish we had an article on Social panic, but we do not, so I'll have to reference Moral panic. When some things have the appearance of secrecy people tend to be inclined to think the absolute worst, no matter how far off the truth that may be. --Cyde↔Weys 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it's pretty much a lot smarter to maintain an impression of openness instead. At some point, you can't control the fact that people tend to react in certain ways, but you can refrain from provoking them. I don't blame people for being people, but I'm disappointed in you Cyde, and Kelly, for not knowing what people are like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Cyde, that attempted secrecy causes suspicion. Wouldn't it be best if someone just gave a clear explanation of the purpose of this list? The thing has cabal written all over it, it's no wonder that the listed users are concerned. Canderson7 ^(talk) 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That page is now merely a mild insult to the reader, and has no edit history. Was it always this way, or has Oversight been used to hide something here? --Philosophus ^T 06:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe I should think for a moment, and ask whether it was deleted and then recreated. --Philosophus ^T 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Oleg above. This showed poor judgment from all the people involved in keeping that list. The day wikipedians are voting according to what will make them look good among a click of wikipedia-veterans is a sad day for the community. Just the very notion that someone are keeping lists of "good" and "bad" wikipedians based on how they act and vote on RFA is very destructive to this community, a community based on everyone acting in good faith and according to what they believe will make this encyclopedia better. If I wanted to oppose an rfa because I didn't see the candidate fit as an admin, I should be able to make that oppose vote without any fear of ending up on some list that would haunt me later. Kelly seemed surprised that the existence of this userpage list became known. I think it would be more surprising if it didn't get known, and I bet many people knew about it long before it got blown up here. I just hope nobody made it influence their voting on Sean Black's rfa. But I'm afraid it might have. And that it might influence people in the future. That is not good, and Kelly should realize this. Shanes 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.Voice-of-All 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is interesting to observe is the tortuous lengths Cyde and Kelly will go to to insist that this was a good, helpful, right, healthy thing to do, and that any upset is definitely not anything whatsoever at all to do with their angelic, prayerful selves, and that it is all everyone else's fault. That this was a stupendous error of judgement (of all those who compiled the original list), whatever its original intent, is plainly obvious; being unable to see that, especially when it is laid out for you in such painful detail, is an elegant corroboration of the judgement error already made. It also has the overtones of those days from primary school when you'd be passing a secret note around under the desks, and the teacher would say "What have you got there, Splash?" and you'd say "Nothing, Sir." as you screwed it into a ball and hid it under your chair. Then, at breaktime, you'd all huddle around the table in the back at the corner, and giggle, guiltily looking over your shoulders to see if any teachers were walking by and, when they caught you, you'd act all righteously indignant in hope you might bluster them into giving up. -Splash - tk 19:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what's really interesting, to me, is the response. A list like this (and, please note, that I've never approved of it) has as much value as people place in it. Anyone who would let a list like that guide their judgement has already made up their mind. Or, more appropriately, has decided to let that list do their thinking for them. That's abominable. At the same time, anyone on a list who thinks that said list has any relevance to their actions clearly has no idea how a wiki functions. I'm saddened that anyone has placed any stock in this ridiculous affair. That goes for both the people who made the list and the people who ended up on it. The best response from the people on the list would have been to call it idiotic (which it was) and carry on with their lives (which I hope they do). This has been a tawdry affair, both silly and unnecesary, and to exacerbate it further would do very little good and probably a great deal of harm. I suppose if anyone hasn't finished expressing their moral outrage at list compilation they should do it now. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about my name being on the list, but you must see that this situation is now self-exacerbating. Even if people stop commenting on it (which they won't), there are several things going on that make them feel worse than they already do for being placed on the list. First their oppose votes are roundly dismissed as ridiculous, then the RFA is closed somewhat unconventionally (again devaluing their concerns), and now we have RFA votes like this from Kelly Martin, which barring any other explanation look like a "because you're on my list" vote. This whole thing was built up wrong from the beginning, and it has been beset by unknowns. That clearly has brought out a lot of suspicion and unease in serious editors, amd I don't think it is going to go away readily. Now we just have a list of people have not had their concerns validated, but who ARE having their suspicions validated. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA is broken.

1. An increasing number of people are voting based on popularity and not based on weather or not candidate will be able to use admin tools responsibly. If there are people who dislike you (for various reasons such as not sharing the same pov etc).
2. Incivility on rfas is begining to be a norm even by established users who should known better. An increasing number of RfAs contain evidence of trolling.
3. Rfas are failing to serve their purpose. Often oppose votes have nothing to do with the local wikis policies etc which the candidate is expected to enforce.

--Cat out 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre

Nay one quarter of a moon has passed, and I've banned Guy Montag from Deir Yassin massacre under the terms of his probation. Inserting copyvio information from here and general tendentious editing on the talk page.

• Notified here.
• Copyvio diff[s] here.
• AE here.

I'm not particularly attached to this, but I thought it was the right thing to do. I have encouraged him to appeal if he feels he has been wronged. - FrancisTyers · 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've lost all sense of proportion and ruined an article over a non issue.

Guy Montag 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ruined the article :/ And I don't think you should be describing copyright violation as a "non issue". As I have mentioned, perhaps I was hasty but I think under the circumstances it was the right thing to do. You initially claimed that it was "one sentence", but have since discovered it was several paragraphs. I think you were a bit hasty in your initial response :) - FrancisTyers · 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: given an initially incorrect reading of his probation, the ban was set to end at "22 July 2007", this as been amended to "9 October 2006". Apologies for this mistake. - FrancisTyers · 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it clearly inflames a situation that was almost over by re-banning Guy. It was already decided that the previous block was inappropriate, and that Guy's actions did not violate the terms of his probation. I am rather uncomfortable with the fact that you would ban Guy for such a similar infraction, I think your actions amount to a wheel-war and I would recomend that you undo the ban, and first discuss the situation here and with other administrators that were involved in the original dispute above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy has informed me that he will be requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text. I have asked another couple of admins to check over my ban, and if they disagree then sobeit. I don't think it amounts to a wheel-war. I don't think you can compare the two reasons for banning as "similar infractions". - FrancisTyers · 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, as you recently commented on some of the issues on that page on the talk page (as an editor, not as an admin), and as you took the opposite position to Guy, calling his position "farcical," it would probably be better if you unbanned him and allowed an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. I've also left a note on your talk page that shows one of the alleged copyright violations wasn't in fact copied at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the clarity, only a fraction of the copyright violations are reporetd at the talk page. The article is full of it, from at least 3 different websites. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that the article is/was a patchwork quilt of material copied from different places. Whatever we may think of the merits of Guy's version, it's risky for us to have an article appears to be effectively a copy-and-paste from multiple copyrighted sources. The fact that Guy is saying now that he's requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text is obviously an acknowledgement that he knows he didn't have permission before. As breaches of probation go, I'd say this was at the high end of the scale; the ban seems reasonable in the circumstances. -- ChrisO 08:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the ban per SV's request. If a things worth doing, its worth doing right. I welcome less involved parties than me to review the ban and reapply it if thought appropriate. - FrancisTyers · 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article is that much of a convoluted collection of copyvio, the only solution is to delete it completely and rebuild from scratch, IMO. Violating copyright first, and asking for permission later, is NOT acceptable whatsoever. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have decided that after it was clear that the article is literally loaded with copyvio's, I only will show the evidence for the first three section, and that can be found here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc The remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag, although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I ahave filed a ArbCom case for this, and the related bised editing here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dier Yassin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote corrupted (again) by user

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) closed a vote in controversial circumstances. A list of categories different to the ones being voted on was added to during a vote after quite a few voters had already voted on the original list. He chose to include votes cast for deletion prior to their late addition as block votes for deletion of the late added categories too, even though the original list was of people who speak universal or majority national languages like English (hardly a topic worth a category), while the late additions were of small languages with so small a usage that the ability to speak it was notable (for example, Welsh). His cock-up in counting and in misrepresenting votes led to a decision at deletion review to undelete the categories added in and re-list them, something he grudgingly did, while refusing to accept any responsibility for the screw-up.

In the relist he added in a false explanation (how it was merely that they had not been listed for a full seven days, not that they had been suspiciously added in when a votes had been cast on other categories). He then corrupted the second vote by canvassing users, asking them if their original votes had been to delete the categories.

1. 19:53, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Merchbow (People by language)
2. 19:52, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Golfcam (People by language)
3. 19:51, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calsicol (People by language)
4. 19:51, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Smerus (People by language)
5. 19:50, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Osomec (People by language)
6. 19:49, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Olborne (People by language)
7. 19:49, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Musicpvm (People by language)
8. 19:48, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sumahoy (People by language)
9. 19:47, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Yonatanh (People by language) link to diff, all the above are the same notice
10. 19:38, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Syrthiss (some category help) link to diff

Prior to the deletion review, his attention to the error had been drawn by a Welsh user. Instead of paying any attention he attacked her in a manner that suggested he was hardly a neutral observer of the debate. She discovered that he had added in the loaded (and completely) misleading supposed explanation for the revote and that he was canvassing support, and informed the users on their pages that the issue was more complex, to try to undo the damage he was doing to the second vote.

To make a mess of counting the first time could be excused (even if his comments suggested he was hardly a neutral observer fit to interpret the results). To deliberately corrupt the revote through a misleading explanation and canvassing, is unacceptable. At this stage it is impossible to work out how many genuine voters are voting, or whether others were canvassed by other means (email, etc). What do we do now? Wait until they are deleted a second time and then relist a third time? At this stage any chance of a balanced debate had been destroyed by Mr Simpson's conduct. A glance at his edits suggests that this is not the first time that he has been engaged in widespread canvassing on issues he feels strongly about. He is making a mockery, and a mess, of the whole deletion system. User:Jtdirl 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen him doing this same sort of thing in other CFD discussions. Sorry, nothing specific, but it's as if he thinks he runs that place. --Cyde↔Weys 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jtdirl, if you had bothered looking at my talk you would have seen that he most certianly did not canvass me for votes. User:Deb made the same erroneous assumption and then deleted her comment off my talk page when she realized her error. He asked me to do two things: do an unreleated history only undeletion that had sat around for ~20 days on DRV (IIRC), and to undelete the cats relative to the relisted CFD because people in a froth about it had re-added items back to the deleted cats and he didn't want to see relinked categories in articles while it was sorted out. I'm going to go check the other edits listed by you to verify that you haven't misrepresented them as well. Asking users who have participated before in a discussion to weigh in is perfectly reasonable, especially if perhaps he felt he was in error in the original closing...as long as all of them are notified and there isn't any attempt to sway the debate ("its up for discussion again please vote KEEP"). Syrthiss 11:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Linked the notice above, it was a question regarding their intention on the debate. Full disclosure is a nice thing, rather than a witch hunt, wouldn't you say? Syrthiss 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking users if they intended their vote to be "to delete" is an non-too-subtle way of canvassing. If he had asked then what their vote was meant to would be somewhat neutral. But asking them to deny his interpretation that their vote to delete, at a time when the he wants people to come to a page to vote to delete, is blatent fixing. Deb caught him up to his usual tricks and simply pointed out that the issue wasn't straightforward and showed them a link to a debate. He has blatently now corrupted two votes on the issue. Users have been blocked from Wikipedia for less. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from your personal attacks and repeated prevarication. The Cfd practice is that such parties be notified upon re-listing. The neutrally worded notice was (all notices were substantially identical):

Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.

--William Allen Simpson 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are Wikipedians voting on this matter in the first place? --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is, indeed, a good question. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A list of categories of people by language spoken was put up for deletion. The list was all of national dominant languages (eg, Danish, given that practically 100% of Danes speak Danish, Dutch, given that practically 100% of Dutch people speak Dutch, etc) and mass international languages like English, French, and Spanish. Categorising people by such languages is pointless — its a bit by listing people per having two eyes, etc. In other words it is the natural default that one would expect and in no way notable. Well into the vote a different type of languages, small use languages where the ability to speak it is so rare as to be notable, for example, Welsh (which few Welsh people can speak), Latin (which few Catholic clergy can speak anymore) etc were sneaked in unto the list even though they are fundamentally different. (For example, the fact that Prince Charles can speak English isn't notable. The fact that he can speak Welsh is notable and made headlines when he studied it. The fact that George Bush can (sort of) speak English is not notable. It is to be expected. If he could speak Latin or Welsh, that would be notable, putting him in a very small elite.) Simpson counted votes cast to delete the first block of widely spoken languages which had been caste before not small minority languages were sneaked onto the list, as votes to delete the entire list. When he was informed by users, who presumed he had not noticed the mistake, of the error, he turned on users and attacked them. A deletion review relisted the rarely spoken languages, amid much moaning from Simpson. He got them relisted (grudlingly), put a misleading explanation for the reason of the vote at the top, placed the relist back with the earlier vote (meaning that new users had to dig around in all the archives to try and track it down) and then to rig it more contacted users in a none-too-subtle attempt to canvass them. So having mishandled one vote, he then tried to set up the second to deliver the result he had announced his support for. But then, as Cyde noted, Simpson seems to be acting like judge, jury and executioner far too often, rather than standing back and letting independent people not committed to one side, to analyse the results, reach a conclusion and implement it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not notified of this discussion by the petitioner.

To the best of my observation, and careful annotation on the current discussion,

1. No languages were sneaked onto the list by anybody, they were all properly tagged by Chicheley (talk · contribs).
2. It is not unusual for additional categories to be added as discovered during an umbrella nomination.
3. The entire discussion had more than 20 participants. There was no controversy. This is an overwhelming supermajority. Also, look at the well-reasoned comments.
4. The actual count for the discussion following complete tagging was 8d:3k. Again, clear, convincing, and obvious supermajority.
5. You will be given an opportunity to prove that I "turned on users and attacked them".
6. The deletion review was concluded promptly (not awaiting the full 7 days) and the debate relisted.
7. The relist copied the entire preceding discussion, as required at Wikipedia:Deletion process.
8. The relist explanation was entirely accurate and objective: RELISTED FOR FURTHER COMMENTS PURSUANT TO Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 18, because 3 categories received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.

I will bring the above personal attacks and prevarication to RfAR as soon as practicable. (I'm very busy, I have a couple of briefs due at the Court of Appeals.) The involved administrators should have their priviledges revoked.

--William Allen Simpson 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

It appears that the "Nanook vandal", known by such registered names as Raptor30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rappy30V2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (V3, etc.) and Nookdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is asking various people to be unblocked. If it can be demonstrated that there is collateral damage at other IPs (strangely, starting with 64) or because others using "Google Web Accelerator, which assigns a small set of proxy Ip's [sic] to it's [sic] users" as claimed (despite the seeming impossibility, as this user's IP has been static from the start), then any such damage certainly should be mitigated. Given the massive evidence against 216.164.203.90, however, this IP should not be unblocked under any circumstances for the foreseeable future. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This user (who previously impersonated me in IRC and on Wikinews) has created wikt:User:Radio Kirk (where I already have an account, without the space) and wikispecies:User:RadioKirk (where I didn't) to impersonate me again. Fortunately, it's painfully obvious... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Laser Tag and WP:EL

On July 6 2006, I made this revert with VandalProof and has resulted in some problems. 65.78.112.37 (talk · contribs) then made this comment on my talk page and re-added the link here. In response and based on criteria at WP:EL, I cleared out links here with the edit summary of removed a great numer of links based on WP:EL (specific companies; dicussion-only forums; niche or small area tag sites, ect. that reported on other aspects and companies and clubs dealing with Laser tag. The IP then reverted my edits [66], commented on my talk page [67], and started commenting on the dicussion at Talk:Laser tag#External Link Discussion [68] [69] [70]. I started stating some reasons why the links were removed in detail [71] (IP responded [72] and I responded to this with [73]). The IP then gave reasons for each link here, and I responded to each with this edit as did Sugarskane (talk · contribs) here. Both me and Sugarskane took a break and since then, the IP has responded with this, using our sleeping/work/ect as a reason to re-add the links. Even before this, Sugarskane had implored the IP several times to express why these links are needed [74] [75].

Finally, I returned last night, saw the reentries to the ELs on the main Laser Tag page and reverted. The IP then left me this message, then user Whateverpt (talk · contribs) (most likely the IP, based on talk page comments and articles of interest) left this message, and the IP then left this message. I believe this is all to make a point by the IP to push his webpage that was the starting point of this mess.

I would VERY much like someone to take a look at this and respond. I am going to walk away now, because the time I spent on this the other night, and the time I am spending now reported this, could be used for most important things like creating articles, WP:CVU, and helping to wikify articles. Thank you for who ever can respond. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:Whateverpt created the article Actual Reality, which seems not to be notable enough for inclusion, but since I have mentioned all of the above, I will refrain from "prod"ing or "csd"ing it. They have also include the webpage I have brought into question above in the article as a external link. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Moeron, you've done a great job removing all those external links. That other user(s) is QUITE in the wrong here. Simple case of overlinking. --InShaneee 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally commented out the entire external link section and asked someone with more experience to the topic to look over the section. There were a few links that, during the discussion, I thought might be good to keep around. Could a non-biased, more experienced, admin look at the following and consider them for inclusion?

• Miles Tag DIY Laser Tag System
• Laser Forums
• Frag Tag

"Non-biased, more experienced"? --InShaneee 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-biased -- someone that hasn't been dealing with Whateverpt... More experienced -- someone that knows the EL stuff better than I do. Do any of the above links seem valid for inclusion? --Sugarskane 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job Moeron. And shame on whoever is that IP for blatant lack of civility. Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. "Actual Reality" is mentioned VERY breifly an almost inconsequentially in the article. The link that was readded was to a site with what appears to be a particular company's laser sensor (and possibly equipment). Its almost useless to the reader of the article. Also one of the diffs I checked with a brief arguement by the anon is a straw man arguement ("the other links are still there" and its relatives). Last, the other diff I saw with 5 or so links added is clearly not a good idea. Kevin_b_er 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

This guy simply doesn't follow wikipedia's standards. He continuosly makes edits to Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 without showing any proof, then when asked, still doesn't until he gets close to breaking the 3rr. Even then, he claims other experienced and respected user's to be idiots or stupid, makes various personal attacks, and blanks user's comments[76]. He ignores all warnings given to him, and has been given countless chances to stop his hostile behavior/vandalism. I am becoming very stressed with this retunring vandal, as he uses different IPs to escape blocking, and is very stuck up. It's becoming a challenge for me to not make personal attacks myself.--KojiDude (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Port scanning

I'm wondering why I'm getting this.

16:55:56 Port Scanning has been detected from 207.142.131.228 (scanned ports:TCP (4749, 4748, 4746, 4742, 4744, 4745))

15:59:46 Port Scanning has been detected from 207.142.131.228 (scanned ports:TCP (3179, 3146, 3181, 3184, 3182, 3183))

(timestamp is in gmt-4) This is a Wikimedia IP. I've been getting this intermittently for the past 12 hours. Just thought I'd make a note of it someplace. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)}

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might get more response. --pgk^(talk) 20:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post it there too. If you feel you need to remove the post from here, go right ahead - I'll be watching both places. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 20:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)}

User 68.96.102.166 - please unprotect talk page, he's vandalizing again

The block for IP editor 68.96.102.166 has apparently expired, because he is making a mess. He's blanked the Talk:Newbie page, redirected Floob from Newbie to Wright brothers, and I can't warn him because his talk page is protected. Could someone lift the talk page block and/or reblock him? Thanks - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected (you know, that's the reason I was one of the few against allowing blocked users to edit their user talk pages...). --cesarb 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

personal attack and/or death threat

From [77]

"Now at least I know there are some people who personally cannot stand me here and will do anything to delete any content I enter - even if they are too stupid to notice that the joke is on them. There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award.".

Phr (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. --mboverload@ 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Awww... that was the most amusing nutjob I've seen in ages! Check out his user page if you haven't already. the wub "?!" 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The current page is nothing more than a "user banned" notice. I assume you meant to link here. -- llywrch 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a surreal userpage. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that makes me sad. Phr (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a tiger if I ever saw one. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to clear off the "novel" the user posted on their talk page? Paul Cyr 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarner and User:DPeterson

I've blocked User:Sarner for 48 hours for the following personal attack: [78]. There's some nastiness going on here; I first became aware of it when I denied a very inappropriate speedy deletion tag on Advocates for Children in Therapy (see [79]), which itself could have merited a block, but instead I gave a stern warning. I left WP for the day and came back to find they'd had a bit of a fight on my talk page. Advocates for Children in Therapy has now been nominated by Sarner for deletion; his reasoning consists of a LOT of failing to assume good faith. I invite others to review the situation. Mangojuice^talk 01:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia - out of control?

Sorry to bring this up again but it seems this user is now totally out of control.

Here she is accusing another editor she is engaged with in an edit war on Hugo Chavez and Criticism of Hugo Chavez of "personal attack" for politely asking her to "keep a cool head" and expressing his opinion, well within guidelines, on her edits [80] (this seems particularly mean-spirited to me as English is User:SuperFlanker's second language and it must be so stressful for him to have his usage constantly critiqued and micro-managed in this way).

Here she is using User talk:Torinir‎ for her own personal attacks and dialogue because he was going to close Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome, as she had requested herself [81] but was actually beaten to it by User:Kylu(???).

Here she is trying to misrepresent the final edits on the previous WP:ANI [82] thus [83] and [84].

I am posting this here because it is impossible for me to negotiate with a person who manipulates like this and I honestly do not want to get into some kind of personal, ongoing war with her, but this behavior CANNOT be right? --Zeraeph 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentations again. It looks like I've acquired a friend for life.

I did not request the mediation be closed: on the contrary. Zeraeph is pointing to a copy of my post here, on AN/I. I have suggested that this be taken to proper channels, which *is* mediation. I requested the case be closed here on AN/I, because Zeraeph's previous comments did not belong here. User:FrancisTyers already requested that he not post about it here. [85] Dispute resolution belongs on MEDCAB. Yet, here it is again, although Zeraeph has still refused to talk directly with me [86][87] about his allegations, and requested that the Mediation be closed [88] before it was even started.

I have reminded another editor that if he continually characterized legitimate edits as vandalism, that could be interpreted as a personal attack.

And Zeraeph came into a conversation I initiated with the mediator, when he quickly closed the mediation case that was and still is sorely needed. Sandy 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again User:SandyGeorgia is making statements that do not accord with the facts of her behaviour in the histories thus:

She says: I did not request the mediation be closed: on the contrary."

I will admit that I have only just noticed that the statement that seemed to indicate her wish for 2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome to be closed ([89]Per the instructions at the top of this page (Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.), I respectfully request that this issue be taken to proper channels, and struck from this page. This doesn't seem to have the best means of addressing the issue, or the right place for it. Thanks, Sandy 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)) was, in fact, a copy and paste from the previous WP:ANI, which human error I regret, however I responded to it as the request to close 2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome I sincerely believed it to be here [90] thus: ::I am in agreement, though I initially hoped it might be possible to resolve this issue here, which is why I made the request, but since I saw the responses on WP:AN/I I now realise that would be inappropriate, as well as impossible --Zeraeph 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) more than three days ago, which should have made the misunderstanding abundantly clear, as well as my feelings on the topic, as I have also done in on her own talk page [91].

She says: :I have reminded another editor that if he continually characterized legitimate edits as vandalism, that could be interpreted as a personal attack.

And yet in this edit[92] she clearly states (follow links for full picture):::::I could accept your apology, but you have just done it for the third time. This is your third warning now to refrain from attacking my character or motives or good faith editing. I am not vandalizing, I am not retaliating, and I am certainly calm. As you know, we've had conversations before about your attempts to paint me as hysterical, and I will not accept any more personal attack characterizations, either on talk page or in edit summaries. Please refrain from describing me as retaliating or vandalizing in edit summaries, and please refrain from referring to my emotional state, unless you are able to see through your computer into mine. I am certainly calm, and expect these personal attacks to stop. Sandy 22:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

She says:And Zeraeph came into a conversation I initiated with the mediator, when he quickly closed the mediation case that was and still is sorely needed. Sandy 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet, in this edit [93] it can be clearly seen that, in fact User:Kylu closed the case, which fact I was about to communicate to [User:Torinir‎] when I saw this edit [94] and this edit [95] stating: Not so fast :-) The user appears to have started that mediation for the sole purpose of harassing me, he didn't back up a single allegation, and the case needs to be closed in a way that I'm also satisfied. Sandy 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. But he initiated the action for one reason only; he gave not an ounce of evidence for anything, smeared me on AN/I, MedCab, the AS talk page, and my talk page. I have recorded the final AN/I statements on the MedCab case, and will make a final statement there, because it was not a genuine attempt at mediation. It was a smear. Sandy 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) which, coming from the same person I had just seen, in this edit [96] instruct another editor to please refrain from referring to my emotional state, unless you are able to see through your computer into mine. made her claims to know my motivation in a far more complex way seems very hypocritical and vexatious to me. As though there must be one liberal standard for User:SandyGeorgia and another, far more rigorous one every user who does not suit her, to be policed by User:SandyGeorgia.

When I tried to communicate with her, by her own admission she simply disregarded every word I said thus: [97] (making exactly the same assumptions about me that she fobids other editors to make about herself.

At this stage I do not know any way to communicate civily with a person who consistently misrepresents facts and insistently applies double standards, and I do not know what can be resolved by mediation with a person who constantly re-invents history and refuses to deal in the facts.

I have already explained, in several places such as [98] (:I do not see any realistic way to resolve any problem directly with any person who's only attempt at resolution is to distort the facts as Sandy has chosen to do below and in other instances. Resolution is dependent upon change, not pretence. --Zeraeph 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)) why I feel I made a serious error in judgement in thinking this could be solved by mediation, which I now fully acknowledge. --Zeraeph 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that you see the misunderstanding (that I did not request mediation be closed), I hope you will either speak directly with me, e-mail me, or re-open mediation, and refrain from further entries here. As Francis explained to you, this is not the right place for dispute resolution. Sandy 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the above are out of the question. I cannot, and will not, participate in any form of dialogue with a person who is manipulative and is not truthful, for many reasons, not least of which is the sheer futility of attempting achieve resolution in the face of that kind of behavior.

When I thought mediation was an option I did not realise User:SandyGeorgia was capable of the degree of deceit she has shown since I requested it. Thus, my request is now withdrawn.

This is not a "personal dispute" of any kind. This is an issue of User:SandyGeorgia's abusive behavior towards other editors and manipulation of WP:Policy to suit herself. I am not prepared to enable that to go on covertly. --Zeraeph 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Second mediation refused. [99] Sandy 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious from my comments above that I will decline to participate in any dialogue or mediation involving User:SandyGeorgia. If any Admin wishes to mail me for a, strictly private ,further explanation please feel free.

I find it telling that User:SandyGeorgia has not acknowledged, let alone attempted to explain, the two blatant lies she told, and I showed evidence of, on this board tonight. --Zeraeph 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it 'telling' that you wouldn't participate in mediation, myself. Without investigating terribly far, I'm troubled that both of you are making personal attacks at each other above. --InShaneee 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you? Well let me explain the reality, I have a life, I do not have time to spend wading through histories, to check, and usually debunk User:SandyGeorgia's constant confabulations and misrepresentations to the point where the discussion would concern fact rather than fiction.

I do not possess the necessary masochism to voluntarily submit myself to unrelenting manipulation and psychological abuse, which is all the User:SandyGeorgia's behavior towards me (and a few others who don't suit her) consists of, and if her strategies are too subtle for you, aren't you the lucky one? But unfortunately that does not blind me to them or prevent them from affecting me adversely, does it?

Even if I was prepared to do all these thing there would be absolutely no point, because any agreement made by User:SandyGeorgia would probably be a pretence, and there is no way I can pretend to find her behavior acceptable until it really is. --Zeraeph 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Repetitive category deletion attempts

I'm an administrator but I'm a little biased so I figured I'd ask for an impartial ear. Isn't there some unwritten rule about nominating categories for deletion over and over?

• Attempt 1
• Attempt 2
• Attempt 3 and now...
• Attempt 4

If they were whacked on the first or even second attempt, I wouldn't say much ---- but FOUR now?! All within an eight-month span.

Moreover, this time, the categories weren't even tagged until three days after the CFD was started so if you're like me and don't keep close tabs on WP:CFD, then you end up only being the fourth or fifth vote which is clearly a disadvantage.

What gives?! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

They appear to each be nominated by different editors, who presumably all independently thought they should be deleted and didn't know there had already been a discussion about it, as most of the talk pages don't mention the previous CfDs. The two recent ones are also several months apart from the others and each other. Tagging them incorrectly is bad, but I think it is pretty likely that these users just all thought they should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 08:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Pppppfffttt. Oh well.... Sour grapes = —Wknight94 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

This user is tagging article after article for deletion to "illustrate a point" relative to the current Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD. A little warning might be in order. Thanks. (→Netscott) 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This user's own words, "I'm trying to demonstrate". Definitely fits the definition of POINT. (→Netscott) 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Every one of the SEVEN tagged articles are minor ones that warrent PROD and all fail a variety of things. Some of them have support from others to delete. What disruption? I can't PROD articles? rootology 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here. He could have used other accounts--which I believe the wikipedia's rules are like ebay's: none can be blocked and they can't interact on the same articles, and it's allowed--so his actions would not be watched, but he didn't. assume good faith? Hardvice 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rotology's words, "I'm trying to demonstrate that the WP:WEB for wikis overall are valid to keep". Tagging article after article for deletion to illustrate your point is not the way to do things. You're just going to cause problems and anger folks who in seeing your POINTed behavior are likely to start editing in retaliatory ways relative to yourself and further disrupt Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardvice, according to User:Tony Sidaway you're on notice for trolling over this issue... you're not in the best position to be discussing this matter. (→Netscott) 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that "he didn't try to hide his rule violations" is hardly a saving argument. --InShaneee 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay for people to make points while NOT disrupting Wikipedia. I don't see how those articles are inappropriate to nominate, nor how the AfD debates that might result (if the PRODs don't go through) would be disruptive any more than any other debate. To me, WP:POINT use of deletion process involves either (1) tagging of articles that are clearly worthwhile, or (2) tagging of articles for disingenuous reasons (such as, because they are edited by an editor someone else is in a dispute with). Mangojuice^talk 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's understandable that in light of hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s own pointed demonstrations he'd be inclined to defend User:Rootology. Both of these users should be blocked for an extended period of time. (→Netscott) 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass AfDing/PRODing is going to rile folks up especially given the environment it's been done in. Doing that just causes hard feelings and inclines people to act in retaliatory ways... (→Netscott) 04:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I'm actually not trolling. I am expressing myself. I am inclined to think you are the one trolling: following root around, personal attacks on me here, and stirring up trouble. Hardvice 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that if the only way we can reference an article is by it's homepage, then that may indeed not qualify it as an encyclopedia entry under WP:RS. Though that is just a guideline, not policy, if we are not able to find reliable secondary sources about the subject, it may not be notable for inclusion.--MONGO 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott also posted (I believe to Tony's Talk page) that we should have an official WP policy against articles on subjects that criticize Wikipedia. I don't think I should be banned for anything. Look at the replies to WP:WEB on my post. Compliments, civil discussion. "Good job on the PRODS". Hipocrite and Netscott are e-stalking my activities I think, given I stood up against them in good faith. ED is gone from WP. They can come back when they eventually get more notable, and when they do should be welcomed back the same as any other "notable" subject. I prod'd articles that are lacking. Would it be not disruptive if I did "one"? Or is seven too much? If I find 5,492 articles merit deletion per policy, am I not allowed to PROD? If I find (somehow) 15000 or 100000, should they not go because it's a big number? I don't understand this. I never wandered into any of this admin stuff before. I edited my cheerful little projects, and while digging around for the one baby project I started, I found Habbo Hotels mess. That led to this. If I get banned, ban. I'll appeal to ArbCom if I have to. This is absurd. Thanks, I'm done and am unwatching this page now. Apparently only people popular in the right cliques can "be bold". rootology 06:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Leaving aside for a moment the evidence of disruption, nominating those articles is, on the whole, uncontentious: none of them appear to have reliable secondary sources, and most can easily be dealt with in a single sentence in some other article. MONGO is right - if the only source is the site itself we really can't cover it per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL Vandal Fun (again)

The AOL ceiling cat vandal is back, this time with [[Image:Michael-Jackson-With-Kids.jpg]]. We've been reverting him like crazy for the last 20 minutes, but the ip's keep changing. I know a lot of you have dealt with this on a routine basis...any ideas? I'm about to call it a night, and I've got nothing. I'm not sure a block would really help. Alphachimp ^talk 06:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmph. Wasn't there supposed to be a fix for the AOL proxy issue a while ago? Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy-paste move redirect vandalism

Comanche cph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made Ragnarök a redirect to Ragnarok and then proceeded to copy-paste the content of Ragnarök over to Ragnarok. I have reverted these edits, but I am not sure as to how long they will stay as such. Ryūlóng 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't call it vandalism? Do you use more user names since you come from no where and call it vandalism?

Ragnarok is the English word, and this a English wikipedia right? Ragnarök is not the old Norse word. But the Icelandic. Look at how the article Midgard looks like. On that way this article should be. Or do you also think that we should change that article to "Miðgarðr"

The letter "ö" is not in the English alphabet. --Comanche cph 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct approach is to move the article from one name to the other. Copy-pasting it destroys the history (essentially, it makes it look like you wrote the entire current article by yourself in one sitting.) If the move can not be made because something already exists at the old name and the system will not permit the move, you should list is at Wikipedia:Requested page moves for an admin to do it properly. If the move is contested, you should have a discussion first on both talk pages. Thatcher131 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because the letter "ö" is not in the English alphabet does not mean the article should be named without the ö. There are plenty of articles on the English Wikipedia about non-English topics that are named with special characters in the title. WP:MoS-JA will rename articles so they are named with Hepburn Romaji and use characters such as ā, ō, and ū. The move is also contended at Talk:Ragnarök, partly because "Ragnarök" is the Old Norse spelling of the work, and that spelling is used in the modern Swedish language, as well as on other non-English Wikipedias (off the top of my head, the French Wikipedia uses ö in their spelling of "Ragnarök"). And what does the "Do you use more user names since you come from no where and call it vandalism?" accusation mean? Ryūlóng 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

4.243.215.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) abusing {{unblock}}

4.243.215.217 (talk · contribs) is abusing {{unblock}} on User talk:4.243.215.217. An admin told him to wait out the block, and he readded {{unblock}} with the reason: 'I don't wanna!'

He was blocked for engaging in personal attacks on his talk page. Due to this and the abuse of {{unblock}}, I seek protection of his talk page. Computerjoe's talk 10:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hopiakuta

Hopiakuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is adding a long, incomprehensible rant at various places, for instance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, User talk:Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability, claiming some article of his on racism has been deleted. (If the article was anything like his other writings, I'm not surprised.) I fail to see the encyclopedic usefulness of his/her contributions. Seems like a person who will very soon "exhaust the community's patience". Tupsharru 11:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, he was an IP editor when "my page but you deleted" happened. Under this account name, he has done nothing but talk pages and project talk pages, and in each of these cases has had something awfully Zen to say, in poetic form. He's quite a newbie to computers, and I assume his handicaps are causing the short lines, etc. So far, though, he seems exasperating, but I can't see where he has crossed a line yet. Geogre 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for information, he appears to be 71.102.31.67 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have been originally upset by an image which was at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Doppleganger, which was quickly removed when the issue was brought up. In response to this he created Wikipedia:Racism, attempting to outline the incident (somewhat incoherently), and seemed to be upset that a project of this sort did not already exist, implying that no one on Wikipedia cared about issues regarding to racism etc. (which I personally found somewhat insulting, but whatev.) I tried to inform him of both the two projects noted above, at which point he proceeded to copy and paste his grievances in multiple places, in a format which is very difficult to understand or read (perhaps because of disabilities). As Geogre says, frustrating, but Good faith nevertheless. Mak (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Robertsteadman, a.k.a. Robsteadman

Some of you will remember the case of Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who engaged in lots of edit warring and abuse, and who used sockpuppets Robeaston99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vhjh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for votestacking, whose behaviour was generally rather hysterical, and who used to write things about "shallow and twisted" admins, "the 'christian' cabal" (lower case c and quotation marks to make the point that Christians don't exist, just as he uses lower case j and quotation marks for "jesus"), who constantly called other editors vandals and called for them to be banned, who accused an atheist admin of being part of the "christian" cabal when he protected a page, who used the sockpuppet Yummy mummy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to get an extra oppose vote at Deskana's RfA, who was finally blocked indefinitely for trolling and abuse, and who then made legal threats by e-mail because of the sockpuppeting accusations.

He returned a few weeks later as Robertsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was originally blocked again after refusing to say if he was the same person, and was then unblocked to give him another chance, and was put on probation.

A new user, Neuropean, who is very likely a reincarnation of Count Of The Saxon Shore (talk · contribs), with whom Rob(ert) was often in dispute, nominated Rob's article Anne Frank's cats for deletion. The article survived the nomination, but it was certainly not an inappropriate nomination, since several people voted to deleted as unencyclopaedic. However, it always looks bad for a new user to start with an AfD nomination. (Since Count Of the Saxon Shore was not a banned user, he had every right to start with a new identity if he so chose.) Robert then started on a clear vendetta against this user, filing two RFCUs (one on Neuropean himself, and one on an IP), both of which were rejected by Mackensen with a {{Fishing}} template. He then made numerous posts to WP:RFI about this user, calling him a vandal, a sockpuppet, and a stalker. He became heavily involved in wiki-stalking Neuropean, showing up at articles the latter had created or recently edited. By the way, it's obvious that he has been making a habit of editing articles that I have just edited as well, and Deskana and Frelke have noticed that he was doing it with them also.

This caused some distress to Neuropean, and he asked Rob on several occasions to stop. Rob continued wiki-stalking, and continued to accuse him of being a vandal, a sockpuppet, and a stalker.

I feel I should have acted sooner. By no means do I wish to imply that Neuropean was blameless, but after the stormy beginning, he showed that he wanted to move on, and made a few compromise offers to Robert. I do not think he will be back. He said he was suffering from depression. Nevertheless, I would like to ensure that this cannot happen again. We were too slow in putting a stop to it. I'm bringing this here for review, because I would like some support in making it clear that wiki-stalking and hurling round of unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry are not going to be tolerated, particularly from an indefinitely-blocked user who has been unblocked on probation.

I don't want to clog up the admin noticeboard, so I've created a subpage with more information here. I know it can be a bit of a bore to start looking through a case that you don't have any experience of, but I'd very much appreciate some reaction. And by the way, although I and Gator1 deleted Rob's user and talk pages at his request when he left, I have undeleted the earlier versions, so as to be able to provide evidence of his behaviour. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So allowed back under a kind of probation, he has harassed another editor to the point of driving him off. I move for a community ban. If this doesn't happen for any reason we can try arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann has missed some vital information out about Neuropean being an internet stalker from another site who had followed me here, has used several different accounts to harrass me. Count of the Saxon Shore (Crusading Composer) etc. may not have been a banned user but should have been. The stalking, as Ann well knows, went beynd WP and the TES forum into real life - she was informed of all this. I do not deel I wiki-stalked him - I edited some articles he had edited once I looked into his actions. If I did something wrong I apologise. user: Syrthiss is well aware of all this and, from emails I have received, agrees that Neuropean was a trouble maker and agrees that evidence I have supplied him with shows a definite link to an internet troll and stalker from another web site. I think it is a great shame that Ann, knowing all of this, and being someone with whom I have had major disagreements with is now using this as a trump card to win an old battle over the Jesus article. Her entry here is truly the ultimate in bad faith edits. Robertsteadman 17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to say, despite qwhat Ann says, and what WP turned up, I have not used any sockpuppets - that is false. At elast one has now told me who they are and it was a student of mine. Robertsteadman 17:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that six checkuser admins said that there was absolutely no doubt of sockpuppetry, and given that they knew you work in a school, there must have been much more to it than that, even though they never give details of what they find as they don't want to teach editors to get better at sockpuppeting. AnnH ♫ 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes VERY interesting reading - perticularly the "sudden" reappearance of Count of the Saxon Shore.... how very odd. Robertsteadman 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already agreed that Neuropean is probably Count Of The Saxon Shore, so I don't think there's anything odd about him reappearing after I had said that I had undeleted your talk page. He knows that there's some nasty stuff that he wrote on that talk page, and so he logged on as COTSS to protest against the undeletion. That's not a violation of policy, he wasn't taking extra reverts or votes, and I doubt if he'll be back. AnnH ♫ 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, indefinatly blocked users weren't allowed to use sockpuppets to come back. RfCU, anyone? --InShaneee 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an RfCU, which showed that Robsteadman and Robertsteadman were the same. See here. It lists his other sockpuppets too, with the exception of Yummy mummy, but the checkuser for that is reported here. His return was discussed here, and he was unblocked on probation according to conditions set here. I agreed to allow him back, but I think it's a bit much that an indefinitely-blocked user who returns without permission and is then kindly permitted to resume activity keeps hurling the word "sockpuppet" at another editor who (if it really was Count Of The Saxon Shore) was not indefinitely blocked, and was therefore perfectly permitted to return, and was also free to start afresh with a new identity, and was not using the newly-registered account to get extra votes or reverts. AnnH ♫ 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking and indefinite block is in order for some time now... --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I'm astonished that Neuropean's self-control and lack of hostility still made him susceptible to such bullying behaviour. If this discussion stays around for a couple of weeks and is then forgotten about and RobertSteadman continues to edit as normal it sets a very bad precedent. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'd like to voice support for an indefinite block. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indefinatly blocked him as a sockpuppet of an indefinatly blocked user. --InShaneee 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was quite right to make the official reason sockpuppet of banned user, since he had been unblocked and allowed back on parole. However, I do support the block on the grounds that his indefinite block was lifted on condition that he behave himself, and that he resumed his abusive behaviour. It's not even a question of blocking him for his recent behaviour, bad though it was: it's simply that he was already indefinitely blocked and when he was given another chance, he started upsetting other editors, bullying and wiki-stalking. I honestly don't think he's able to change. AnnH ♫ 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain exactly what happens with an indefinite block. Can it it be lifted by a different editor without notice. Its not quite permanent is it ? Frelke 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's technically possible for any admin to unblock an editor blocked by another admin. It should not be done without thoroughly discussing it in advance, either with the blockin admin, or, if he's not available, here at AN/I. Unfortunately, some admins do unblock without discussion, and sometimes original blockers reblock, leading to a wheel war. Let's hope that any further action will be discussed in full here before any overturning of the block is considered. AnnH ♫ 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block. I have seen his behaviour on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Bay Northern Hawks (2nd nomination), then his wiki-stalking members of WikiProject Ice Hockey that disagreed have with him. -- JamesTeterenko

Regarding the above discussion... I'm reasonably sure that Neuropean was the person who stalked Robert off-wiki a while ago (commented by Robert above), who came here with the knowledge that Robert would be unable to handle his presence. I will take some of the blame upon myself in that I started a wikibreak just as the Neuropean conflict began, though I advised Robert to talk to another admin (Tony Sidaway was one of the names I gave him) to help sort the situation while I was away. All that said, I'm disappointed Robert couldn't just step back from the situation when Neuropean started making overtures (and FWIW Robert told me he felt he stepped over the line as was sorry for it). I've never been stalked IRL or webwise so I don't know how that effects people's future behavior. I wish there was some other way, but per wiki policy and the terms of his parole I have to agree with the block. Syrthiss 12:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks against and possible harassment of User:Wzhao553

Wzhao553 has notified me that Logoi, with whom he is in a long-term dispute over the Asian fetish article, has been posting Wzhao553's personal information on his talk page (User talk:Logoi). As far as I could tell, most of this has to do with the fact that Logoi revealed the location of Wzhao's blog. Dark Tichondrias mentioned the blog in a separate post on Logoi's talk page. [100] In addition, Logoi was also making personal attacks against Wzhao and then erasing them, so that they did remain in the page history. Is it appropriate, in this case, where Wzhao is claiming that Logoi is harassing him, to edit out comments with the link to the blog? And/or should Logoi's talk page be refactored and protected? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, his talk page seems to serve only or almost entirely as an outlet for personal attacks against me. Also, Logoi first posted my personal information in User talk:Dark_Tichondrias#Hi.2C_Dark_Tichondrias. If it's possible, I would like that removed as well. --Wzhao553 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I just read a little bit of Logoi's Talk page. You might as well include User:Human Fetishist as another user that's been engaging in personal attacks. It looks like he included me, too. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Istartfires

This user has in the last few minutes done a long series of bot-like edits, wikilinking one word on a many pages. Many of these are very dubious--ceded, high, etc., links to disambig pages or redirects. It's not vandalism, but I don't know how to communicate with him about this clearly. I would like him to slow down and do what he's doing more carefully, since a lot of these will end up being reverted if he keeps going as is. Can someone look at his contribs please? Thanks. · rodii · 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted seeming random Wikilinks and asked for a reason (no response yet); another admin blocked 24h. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is getting a high number of revert's so I think it's urgent, and necessary to bring here. Requesting Semi Protection due to large amount of vandalism. Hello32020 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Large revert war going on Hello32020 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind it was just protected Hello32020 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For future reference WP:RFPP is the appropriate place for page protection requests. --pgk^(talk) 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:VelairWight

This user talk page has been vandalized a few times in the last couple of days by what appear to be sockpuppets of Dorsoduro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indefinitely blocked for vandalizing this same user's user page. The vandalizing accounts are The return of Dorsoduro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [101], and Gyt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [102]. There is also a possibly related IP edit, [103]. Since these accounts are likely sockpuppets and their only edits were to vandalize this user's page, they should be blocked, and if vandalism from their IP or IP range continues, then that should be blocked for a little while. —Centrx→talk • 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked both reg users, the IP's block has expired—no activity since, but the user should clearly be watched based on the contribs. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IP came back, re-vandalized, reblocked. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Can someone take a look at his recent contributions? They seem like calculated disruption of the sort I am often accused of. He made Pink fuzzy bunnies a few days ago with what's now at Highway 33 (Minnesota) - see [104] for his rationale. --SPUI (T - C) 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that Pink fuzzy bunnies was a mistake borne out of frustration of this situation. As for the rest... well, let's just say that I'm off the Minnesota State Highways project. I'm not sure why I ever got involved in the highways project in the first place.

Basically, since I've created and/or modified a number of articles under the wrong title ("Minnesota State Highway (x)" instead of "State Highway x (Minnesota)"), that means I did something wrong. That, in itself, is a blockable offense. So I won't argue about the blocks being applied. Indeed, since I made a number of mistakes editing List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota this afternoon, and since I wasted time and server space using AWB, I suppose it's going to happen anyway. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (Note the short signature format)

Ah, you have not been blocked by anyone. Take a deep breath and calm down. :) FCYTravis 23:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: it was Elkman who added the {{vandal}} to the section title. I do not believe him to be a vandal. --SPUI (T - C) 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Fecil

This user has vandalized Seduction in the same way that it has been recently. At the very least, it seems like the article should be locked, but beyond that, I don't know how to get this activity to stop. Andrewski 21:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay (talk · contribs) block of CovenantD (talk · contribs)

• Moved from WP:AN. Steve block Talk 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I wonder if a another admin could take a look. I think the admin here chose a block way before necessary, to what otherwise appears to be a good user. Summary: yes, I think the user was making negative comments, but I don't think such an immediate block was called for. Thanks for your time. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked Essjay on his talk page to clarify this[105], as I feel it is questionable. The comments by which led to the block of User:CovenantD are these: [106], [107], [108].

Essjay justified his block on the grounds of disruption. [109]., [110] I find this highly questionable. I'm concerned that blocking was taken before any other form of dispute resolution. Blocks should be preventantive, not punitive, and as I commented to Essjay, this smacks of punishment to me. Looking at the block log [111], Essjay describes the disruption as being: "incivility and borderline personal attacks at RFCU". Now borderline personal attacks are no basis to justify a block, and nor is incivility. WP:BLOCK is clear on what constitutes disruption:

Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose any kind of threat to it. Such disruption may include (but is not limited to) changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, excessive personal attacks, and inserting material that may be defamatory. Users will normally be warned before they are blocked My emphasis.

I think this is a clear case of a badly issued block. Given the number of positions Essjay holds on Wikipedia, I would hope there are other issues behind this block. Otherwise, to me, it creates suitability issues for some of them. Steve block Talk 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it fair to ask Essjay to explain his block here before speculating further. We need to be clear, though, that the comments CovenantD made on the RFCU page were highly, highly insulting and completely inappropriate. I don't know where he got the idea that such behavior could ever be acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to say that CovenantD lost his temper and said some inappropriate things in his frustration. It's also clear that CovenantD was being extremely impatient with RfCU, which has always been a slow process, but as he noted it was his first RfCU and he may not have realized how long they take. I think these are mitigating factors that should be considered. But I don't see what's "highly insulting" about the remarks, nor do I understand the "abuse" you cited in your initial decision to reject. I'm curious to know what you were referring to. Kasreyn 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you are reading different comments than I, or reading them in a different light, but while I agree they weren't helpful and were pretty negative, I don't see anything "highly, highly insulting" in any way. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of that at all, no. The first comment I link to above is an expression of frustration, after all, Wikipedia is not meant to be a bureaucracy and here is someone running into a bureaucratic log-jam. I don't think anyone is being insulted other than the process. The user showed good faith in asking how long it would take, and having received no reply over 24 hours later frusratingly quesried no response. The rest of his comments seem reasonable considering the replies given. I think your response there is just as inflammatory, to be perfectly honest. I can't see how you were personally abused. Nowhere on the page does it indicate length of delay in getting a response. The first comment is not a personal attack in any shape or form, I can accept a case being made that it is incivil, but it's not cut and dried. The other comments are attempts at fixing a perceived flaw in the system. I think there's demonstrable good faith in Covenant's prior edits, [112], [113], so I think respondents should have assumed good faith, and I don't think they have. I think this situation was escalated by the participants a lot further than necessary, and I think in disregard for user conduct policies. Let's be clear, no-one's conduct is acceptable after CovenantD expressed frustration, but nothing that needed blocks to be issued for. The phrase "storm in a tea cup" springs to mind. Steve block Talk 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

His remarks go far, far beyond normal frustration, and his insinuations were maddening. Checkusering is extremely stressful work, and Essjay's right about the repeated abuse we experience carrying out our task (the nasty emails, the death threats, the tirades, the incivility, the refusal to believe us when we identify sockpuppets, the conversations with Willy on Wheels). This is a question of customer service. He asked for something; fine. He gave no indication that the request was pressing–if it was an emergency one of us could have been directly notified. He then began making a series of personal attacks, each worse than the last. Finally, I have some time and I wander over the Checkuser page. This is what I find. It's always nice to know that the hours upon hours of sacrifice are appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, asking seriously, give us direct links to the 'personal attacks'. I, for one, am not seeing anything that qualifies under any reasonable definition. Further, he should not suffer for the actions of others. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note that Checkuser is restricted because of its sensitive nature and is a measure of last resort. The clerks explained politely and responded negatively. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see that they do go beyond normal frustration at all. Given your answer it appears you had the wrong frame of mind when judging his comments. The user had already noted he was new to the process, and was suggesting reasonable ways to fix the process based on having no understanding of the process. He did give an indication that the request was pressing, [114]. I'd also note you have no idea whether CovenantD was undergoing stress caused by his mediation of the dispute at the page indicated. All of us are volunteers. You criticise CovenantD for his frustration, yet seem oblivious to your own frustration and posting based on that. Your actions are equatable to CovenantD's. DOes this mean I should block you for 24 hours? I still can see no personal insult to you personally. That you took comments personally is one thing; that they were meant personally is another. I don't think you have considered the possibility that any attack was meant personally, but rather at the system which appeared to the user to be broken. If no-one watches the page for 24 hours, is it not reasonable to ask if we can have more checkuser enabled editors? Especially if you are told there are only 2 active in the 14. That seems like a flawed process to me. We all make hours and hours of sacrifice. I'm afraid to me your contention that a series of personal attacks were made is not born out by the edits in question. I accept the clerks responses were perfectly polite. I can't see that CovenantD's response was impolite, and I can't see how you and Essjay justify your responses, nor Essjay his block. I'm also concerned by the flaws this dispute throws up. Should checkuser requests be judged on the merits of the case? If not, there is a worrying precedent set here. Steve block Talk 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd worry about that sort of abuse causing our (volunteer) checkusers to "take a break" and cause other checkuser requests to lag, just because one person was impatient. Blocked or not, if CovenantD was that worked up over something on Wikipedia, it's about time to go do something non-Wikipedia for a bit. I'd suggest the new Pirates movie. *nod* Very good. Depp's a hottie. Ayep. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite balance one volunteer's frustrations higher than another volunteer's. They all impact upon Wikipedia. If that's how the checkuser system operates, I'd question considering another model. But CovenantD tried that and was blocked. He did do something else for 30 hours. I don't know. I remember voting in Essjay's RFA. I just can't see where Essjay got the idea these were blockable comments from. I can't see that no-one can accept some fault here or extend some understanding and good faith. Steve block Talk 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't commented on the block at all, and I don't plan to. :) I'd like to see the block pass, then all sides forgive and forget. While overhauling the current system might be good, I do beleive that there are regular proposals on how to do so and none that I know of have passed. As far as volunteer status goes, imho the reason Essjay has all those nifty +flags is because he's trusted by the community to do the right thing: If a resource (such as active checkusers) is endangered, the community should either try to create more of the resource and/or protect the resource they currently have. Verbally assaulting the resources simply causes an already endangered resource in the persona of active checkusers to potentially vanish. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how one sockpuppet voting in a straw poll can make all that much difference to an article. Even so, I made a very polite response to CovenantD's nagging and suggested an alternate means for resolving the article dispute he obviously feels strongly about. His response was to dump on the checkusers (as a whole, as I read it). To paraphrase Essjay, people forget that nearly everybody working on wikipedia is a volunteer. Perhaps some members of the Arbitration committee should work on the RFCU page instead of the 28 outstanding cases they have right now. Or Brion V could drop his development work on the wikimedia software to help CovenantD win some content dispute. Last week, Essjay identified and reported a long-time apparently "good" editor who had a long-term record of creating vandal sockpuppet accounts, and the community reaction was a big yawn and a week long block. This week Jayjg's integrity has been publicly questioned in at least two places by an administrator he caught using a sockpuppet to evade a block for 3RR, and Mackensen has been harranged on his talk page over at least three declined requests before CovenantD came along. You're lucky to have checkusers at all, and you may find yourselves looking back on the halcyon days when a checkuser request took only 2 days to be answered. Thatcher131 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, Thatcher131. Part of the problem with checkuser is the difficulty in the process that's assigned to it. Technically, I could do the actual checkuser lookup, but socially I wouldn't touch it with a fifty foot pole manipulated by a radio-controlled robotic arm. Look at the Socafan (or whatever his name was) incident where he griped about Essjay revealing the country in which he resided. Actually, look at every five or so RFCU requests since the page began: there's no shortage of gripes and abuses heaped upon those who we're supposed to be trusting with this sensitive information. Now, if he took all the usernames that edited Tiannamen Square and checkuser'd them and reported them to the PRC, I could see that being an issue. If I had someone request that I write an article on my talkpage, I'd consider it. If they demanded such and were nasty about it, I'd tell them to go bugger off in so many words. I think the exact same thing happened here, just with different privelege levels involved. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not have complained about the revelation of a country had it not been for absolutely no reason - the request lacked any basis and should thus have been declined, the fact that it was not revealed a bias - and if Essjay had not written: one is from country x, the other from country y, my geography is bad but I guess they are close so it might be a sock. Try that with a Californian and a guy from NY. Socafan 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On what Thatcher has said, it used to take a lot longer, and the page was considerably less nice than it is right now. Also, the diffs presented are not entirely perfect, as shortly after making a comment, ConvenantD changed the wording from "Time to get more people." to "Time to replace some people.". Basically a call to fire some checkusers and get new ones because they aren't responding instantly to a request. There's no timeframe listed there, insted a resort to attacking the a volunteer process to use a sensitive tool. Kevin_b_er 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I read it as "replacing the people who aren't actually doing any checkusering", but I guess I assume good faith from an otherwise good editor. I do note that the people claiming CovenantD was making personal insults have not responded to requests to specifically point out those personal attacks...and that was the reasoning behind him being blocked anyway, wasn't it? --Kickstart70-T-C 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember when we didn't have checkuser, so any threats about taking it away don't bother me too much. Maybe we should consider if it's a tool that isn't worth the hassle it causes. Steve block Talk 11:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really moved to wonder about the motivations of those who have stirred this up so much; hundreds of similar blocks are made each day, and none ges so much as a word, much less this sort of treatment. I'm inclined to wonder if User_talk:CovenantD#I_would_suggest_you_formally_take_the_above_to_ArbCom doesn't have a lot to do with it. At any rate, the community shall have what they desire: I'm joining the other 13 who don't go near RfCU, and I've encouraged Mackensen to do likewise; the fact that nobody could be bothered to think "Hmm, this might leave us with nobody willing to do this" indicates to me that the community really doesn't care if RfCU has 1000 backlogged cases. I will, of course, continue to be available for requests from the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation Office, as are the other 13; to assume that not working on RfCU = not running any checks is a grand fallacy. Essjay (Talk) 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over this situation and while on first glance I can see why some people don't see it as a justified block. However, I also know (as a fellow CheckUser) how grindingly difficult that job is. I used to be the only person working RFCU, and I couldn't keep it up for long because it's timeconsuming and totally thankless. People who put out with an attitude that they're entitled to whatever they want right away are going to find that that's not the way things work. CovenantD failed to show respect for the very difficult job that Essjay and Mackensen are doing. The rude attitude with which he expressed himself was out of line, especially for someone serving as a mediator. Frankly, he needed a quick smack in the ass to get him to realize he was out of line. I don't know if 24 hours was the appropriate time, but I suspect Essjay would have shortened the block if an apology had been forthcoming.

Long and the short of it, treat your checkusers nice; there aren't many of them and they work really hard for you. Be mean to them at your own peril. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I just see a user (CovenantD) reduce the chances of every other user, including myself, getting help with a checkuser request? Because that kind of bites... I wish you would reconsider, Essjay. And even if you won't, why is it that only about 1% of admins are entrusted with this power, and only about 0.02% actually use it? If it's such a frustrating hassle that burns you out so badly, why isn't the power expanded, maybe to a whopping 50 admins? Surely there have to be, out of those 1000, at least 50 trustworthy admins! I would imagine there are far more than that. Kasreyn 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Responding in the order questions were asked) Yes, that is the case. No, sorry I won't; this happens far too often, and as the link I gave above indicates, there is at least one user actively looking for opportunities to continue. Again, this is a fallacy; while only 2 of us are (were) active on RFCU, nearly everyone with the permission is active in using it. The majority of those who have it are on the Arbitration Committee, and they use it for that; there are also requests from the Foundation Office, and sua sponte checks on things like vandals who continue to create more accounts after they are blocked. If it were expanded, it would be 50 admins burned out, instead of 14; the problem isn't that the permission burns you out, it's the abusive treament from other users. Indeed, there could be, but you have to be very careful when you give out access to information that could get people stalked,imprisoned, or executed; if you give out someone's IP, they can easily end up being stalked, and if they live in a country with a hostile regime, can be imprisoned or executed for the things they do here. That's not something to be handed out lightly. Plus, more is not necessarily better; the more who have access, the harder it is to control, and being able to control who has access to very sensitive private information is imperative. Essjay (Talk) 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the reaction to this incident is completely out of proportion to the questionable block. I appreciate that it's a hard job, but nobody forces anyone to do it, and I think WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIV cut both ways. I'm disappointed in a lot of people's reactions here. All I was looking for was an acknowledgement that there was an over-reaction. As to the discussion on CovenantD's talk page, I wopuld hope people would assume good faith in the fact that people were steering this to the appropriate venues. I would have been far happier sorting this out with Essjay, but a user brought it here, well within their rights and as I had already involved myself I felt obliged to comment. I stand by my assertion that this is a questionable block. I apologise for the grief it has caused people, but I still feel refusing to grant a checkuser request on anything other than the merits of the case is disappointing. I really think there was a failure in common sense on all sides here, and to be honest, if CovenantD deserves a slap, then can we tear up all the guidance on there being no cabal, and no elite, and make sure we tell people that if they ruffle the feathers of the important people or their friends, then they're in the shit. Because I'm sorry, but that's what happened here. [115]. Every time something like this blows up it's because people act before they think. I know I'm guilty of it, but don't we have a right to expect better from the chairman of the mediators? This is out of hand; whatever happened to a common sense approach and the extension of putting yourself in the shoes of the other? If someone has a beef, I thought they had the right to be heard respectfully. I'm sorry for the way this has turned out, it was never my intention. Steve block Talk 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone has a beef, I thought they had the right to be heard respectfully. Couldn't agree more; I wish Essjay and I were extended the same courtesey. He was heard respectfully (from Thatcher) and he chose to be rude. I can't help that. I'm not going to quit checkusering, but as it seems I'm the last man standing, y'all will have to work around my own work schedule from here on out. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand me. I'm talking about Kickstart70's beef with the block. I'm disturbed by the questioning of people's motives in commenting on the block. I can't help that the block was given. I believed there was a right to question it. Steve block Talk 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I'd have no problems with Essjay and Mackensen going on a long (and possibly permanent) RFCU break. The one good thing that's come out of it is that it's advertised even more that RFCU is a gruelling and thankless job. If people choose to treat RFCUers like this, and the RFCUers feel like they're being hung out to dry, let them take a long break from doing that job so the rest of the community can realise how hard it really is. (please note, not a comment on specific people here, but a general comment on people being hung out to dry) --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do have a problem. They are both reliable and trustworthy users, they have done a huge amount of work behind scenes to improve the encyclopedia, and, they handle most of the RFCU cases. "But the side effect is to show RFCU is thankless job" gain is not worthy the loss. -- Drini 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, having them perform and the support a block against policy and without the warnings that should have happened show pretty clearly that there is an issue with judgement that needs to be considered. I am very thankful for their work, however that does not leave them blameless for making a bad choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Update Guess what? If CovenantD had asked Samuel Luo and Tomananda nicely why they appeared to have the same IP address, they would have told him. Thatcher131 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke

Could someone kindly tell TJ Spyke that calling my good-faith edits "trolling", is against WP:NPA. I tried nicely to tell him, but he keep reverting my edits with edit summaries of "Lousy trolls" and "STOP CHANGING THAT YOU TROLLS". Although I don't agree with his edit summaries, I also don't agree with his edits either because my edits have a source, which I provide, but he persistantly remove them saying I'm trolling which I'm not. 209.214.141.10 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not the first time he's done this, and user is a bit of a revert warrior besides. Warned. --InShaneee 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, he also said he was sorry if he offended me, which I accept if that was apology. 209.214.141.10 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Iosefo

Could somebody with the proper authority remove the history of this attack page? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And the same thing at Peter MCcoy, please? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Iosefo & Peter MCcoy 's deleted histories appear to contain no information suitable for oversight application. The pages are already deleted and not available to non-admins. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Link spam and possible threat

While I am watching Xiaolin Showdown, this edit popped up: [116]. While the user only put up a link to a Xiaolin Showdown fan RPG while also separating the notable TV.com from the Kids WB and Wizards of the Coast sites, his message is particularly poignant. I think he's just a link spammer, trying to advertise the RPG that he's a part of. While it is an AOL IP, something should be done. Ryūlóng 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL IP, 15 minute block, Please drive through to the next window. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

Someone want to take a look at this page? Seems there is, pardon the expression, a war breaking out. Fan-1967 01:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Page sprotected by User:Mark. <;;;i>~Kylu (u|t) 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson trying to make CFR a vote

Can someone look at and possibly revert [117], [118] and [119]? See also Template talk:Cfd2. --SPUI (T - C) 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

CFR might not officially be a vote, but it certainly is how discussion proceeds de facto, and changing the templates or page name won't change that any time soon. Circeus

We shouldn't be encouraging this though. After I substed the template I had to go back and edit out the bolded merge. --SPUI (T - C) 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody apparently hasn't read the instructions. We have 3 templates, Delete is cfd, Merge is cfm, and Rename is cfr (plus cfr-speedy). Each logs its name. Not particularly difficult for those that read and follow instructions. This is not new, it's just SPUI wiki-stalking my contributions.

--William Allen Simpson 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

More like me listing something on CFD, finding an extra merge that I didn't want, and removing it. --SPUI (T - C) 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what is this? Less than 10 people talking about changing CFD, now its not a deletion debate anymore, but insted a discussion with voting? Shouldn't need to have the forced "* '''Delete'''" at the start of any XfD template used to start a discussion. Kevin_b_er 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

CfD/CfM/CfR has always been a discussion with voting, and the templates are there for the folks that can read and follow instructions. The rest of you are free to make up your own words, which will be fixed to conform to the format the rest of us are using. We have to do that all the time!

As for only 10 people being involved, you were certainly free to join that procedural discussion, too. But things have been this way since long before I began using my well-known mundane name to edit here.

--William Allen Simpson 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised that William has apparently agreed to keep this out. --SPUI (T - C) 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind - he's added it to the other templates.[120][121][122] Better, as it's easy to remove, but still sets a bad example. --SPUI (T - C) 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT nominations are speedily closed.

--William Allen Simpson 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthurmore, why can I find no mention of this stuff in the history of the village pump on policy or proposals? Why is CFD now a vote with forced selections of wether it should be merged/deleted rather than need arrising through discussion like the rest of the deletion discussions? Kevin_b_er 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When was it otherwise? What other deletion discussion(s)? The same formatting appears at RfD and TfD.

--William Allen Simpson 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Crap. That's a mess. It needs fixing. It's generally a bad idea to hold votes. We really prefer consensus, if that's ok with you. :-) Kim Bruning 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kim, I have 30+ years of experience in consensus-based organizations, including non-profit, political, and technical organizations, and the first technique taught is "let's go around the circle and each person state their position and reasons".

The Cfd process (recently renamed after much effort by us from "for deletion" to "for discussion") has since its first day clearly specified:

'''Your vote''': Your reason for nominating the category ~~~~

Wikipedia is by no means a consensus-based organization. As cited by an especially obstreperous administrator in another "discussion" trying to tell me what consensus actually means here (quoted):

Wikipedia is not the mundane world. See WP:Consensus and the talk page for the many ways in which "consensus" in Wikipedia has been redefined, sometimes in stark contrast to the common understanding of the term. At times it strikes me as Orwellian doublespeak to describe certain Wikipedia practices as "consensus". But in this case, the "lack of objection" is actually among the least disturbing distortions. It's a sort of consensus by apathy. ..." -- <unsigned>

Yup, I agree, it's a mess. :-) We generally use "no objections" as our *test* if consensus exists. If there's an objection, we then go around the circle. (see: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for an example of such a method, thought that particular application is fairly heavy duty) We've also used straw polls to test if we need to go around the circle again. In some situations, people have failed to learn how consensus works, and are skipping the "go around the circle" bit. Oops. Especially polls are vulnerable to this problem, since they look a lot like votes to people who aren't used to them. I recently got told off for agressively pursuing consensus at Requests for adminship. I'm still busy resolving that and convincing all the new people that *yes* I may actually pursue consensus and have been allowed to since 2001 ;-) . Kim Bruning 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I firmly disagree, and have done my best to improve the processes to be better and clearer and easier. This SPUI-style "consensus" by wearing folks out is wrong!

--William Allen Simpson 03:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a deletion discussion, not a 'Separate activities to do to namespace discussion'. TfD and RfD don't have their templates automatically treat it like a vote and put "* '''Do this'''" in the created text. Only 10 people probably saw it because I would hope such a change occurs thourgh larger discussion. Kevin_b_er 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not and has never been about deletion only. Merging and renaming are both extremely common, both as proposals and as outcomes, and there are other possibilities as well. Complaints about the inappropriateness of the old name were aired on several occasions over at least a year. Osomec 07:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. Because of the vagaries of the category system, CFD tends to work in a very different way to the other deletion pages. There tend to be more complicated discussions, often involving blanket changes over several categories, and there are a wide range of possible outcomes. This is the reasoning behind the recent name change. However as far as I can tell these templates are intended for cases which the nominator believes can be resolved simply, and in those cases these templates are a time saving measure. This does NOT in any way prevent anyone else from suggesting alternatives, at any stage in the process. Nor does it prevent the nominator from using a more "customised" nomination message if it is felt appropriate. the wub "?!" 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Silver and Kreese: Getting Down and Dirty

As far as I can establish this film is a hoax. There is no independent Google sourcing and it is not in IMDb. The article Silver And Kreese - Getting Down and Dirty has been prodded for this reason. If you check Martin Kove you will see that it has been repeatedly added by anons. I cannot remove it any more since I am at my 3RR limit. Can anything be done or must we accept that this article will contain a hoax film? BlueValour 01:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a case for sprotection? At least until whether the "Down & Drty" movie is determined to exist. -- llywrch 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is apparently user User:Jackman69, evading his through AOL IPs. he was the creator of teh Movie article and was blocked for his actions at Kurt Cobain, where he keeps removing alternate spellings through the same IPs. I have semi-protected Kove for now. Circeus 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Circeus. BlueValour 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Shougiku Wine (talk · contribs)

moved from AN:

I'm not sure if I'm reporting this to the correct place, but Shougiku Wine (talk · contribs) is attempting to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takeshima Islands (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takeshima Islands|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as part of a POV dispute over whether an article should be named Takeshima Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Dokdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The result of the POV dispute was the creation of a POV fork of the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Shougiku Wine has clearly moved into the realm of personal attacks against those who don't agree with him as well as using racial language.[123] --TheFarix (Talk) 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be on /Incidents, but I've given 24 hours. Circeus 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous display of personal attacks, and I will not even consider gracing with an answer. I am tempted to lenghten the block though. Circeus 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he may be do for a permablock as it's pretty evident to me that he is is just trolling. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There he goes again. Is anybody interested in reading the whole thing? Circeus 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Afd Tag

User:Rlk89 removed the afd tag of an ongoing afd [124] I placed the afd tag back and asked the user not to remove tags from ongoing afds (as the template asks you not to remove them from ongoing discussions) [125] and he removed the tag again saying in the edit summary "Conflict is resolved" even though the Afd is ongoing. [126] I don't want this to turn into an edit war so I ask that an administrator intervene. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, the situation seems to have been resolved as he self-reverted his edit.--Jersey Devil 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin/R

I have blocked Kelly Martin for 24 hours for recreating of the above list, which I speedy deleted, as per my clear warning on her talk page. El_C 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely concerned that El C chose to block while he was involved in a conflict with Kelly Martin over this issue. In addition to taking a threatening and confrontational tone, I note that he was one of the individuals listed on Kelly's page. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Kelly to keep such a list, it was definitely not El C's place to threaten and block here. I'm tempted to block El C for wheel warring (deleting and blocking while the issue was being discussed further up this page) and immediately unblock Kelly Martin, but I'm aware of the irony that would lace such a course of action.

I would encourage a rapid sampling of opinion here and if there is a general agreement Kelly should be unblocked so that she can at least participate in this discussion—and continue to work on Wikipedia, where she has been bloody useful for the last two years. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that El C has reconsidered this block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I reject that involvement and charges of wheel warring, and I only reverted myself because of you threats to block me. Now I will let you deal with her disruptive conduct and lists. You are contributing to KM's continued abuse of Wikipedia with these list games. El_C 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On wheel warring—what do you call it when two admins delete and undelete (or delete and recreate) pages, then start blocking? I didn't threaten to block you – nor did I reverse your action – precisely because I didn't feel like getting dragged into a wheel war and firestorm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I took it as a threat. I deleted the lists in multiple pages; there was no wheel warring over a specific page, and if there was, it was in error. As mentioned, I acted to prevent conflict because no one seemed prepared to stand up to these orchestraded games, but I should not be expected to waste my time on the intricate detail of these. End of story. El_C 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Kelly would, in her profound wisdom and infinite munificence, be willing to grant a boon to the lowly peons and offer some few words of explanation as to the purpose of the lists?

(I'll point out that "he was one of the individuals listed on Kelly's page" does not necessarily disqualify El_C from enacting blocks; this goes back to that whole hypothetical "If a user picks a fight with every admin, does that mean nobody can block him?" thing.) Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

They're pretty much just being created to annoy people at this point. Somehow this is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior... yeah it's pretty silly. I guess it's effective trolling, but it's sad how many people are okay with it. Meh. --W.marsh 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The /R list was a list of random users with random colors assigned to them. There was absolutely no meaning to the list that El C deleted. I created it for one express purpose: to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it. Considering that he previously deleted a harmless redirect and a blank page from my user space, I wasn't too surprised that he did. To an extent, this is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but if the extremely minor disruption that this causes exposes a wildly irresponsible admin for who he is, I consider it worthwhile. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Fascinating. I admitt I did not expend a great bit of focused concentration for the precise detail of each component of these games. Naturally, they get the bottom end of my time. Now that should have been predicted by her social experiment! El_C 07:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that you've accomplished that, can we have an end to the lists? Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you made El C look bad. He (presumably) sought to punish you for disrupting Wikipedia with the creations of these lists. Isn't this, by your own admission, exactly what you did, particularly with this last list? You know people find these lists very annoying and yet you continue to make them. Regardless of the rationale behind these lists, you ought to know better. Maybe you (and others) find them funny, but there are many people who want you to just cut it out and act like the mature admin you should be. I, for one, am one of those people. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What the heck? You create a disruption to goad an administrator into blocking you and then you are shocked when they take you up on the offer? That's kinda like the boy who repeatedly pokes the dog with a stick and is surprised when he gets bit. If any of us poor little users who don't have your clout were to make such a list and refuse to say what it is for, and continually recreate it when asked not to, I seriously doubt anyone would bend over backwards to defend us. BigDT 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So, basically, Kelly recreated the list in order to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Mangojuice^talk 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't recreate anything. Please check your facts. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Perry Mason, you created the list in order to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Which, of course, makes precisely zero point zero percent difference. --Calton | Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting lists. I wonder if they're one of those classic "secret list" social experiments. Kim Bruning 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (And once again, I'm not on them. Argh, no respect these days)

Seriously! What does a guy have to do to get on a secret list these days, anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful for what you ask. Sometimes obscurity is a very enviable state. ;-) -- llywrch 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is seeking conflict with these lists, and when admins such as myself issue and enforce warnings on these, admins such as TenofallTrades threaten to wheel war and block me, whilst choosing inaction on the KM front. It looks bad. El_C 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would have stood my ground (I maintain this was a legitimate WP:NOT/POINT block/deletion - no wheel warrning whatsoever) had it not been for TenofallTrades warning. Unlike some, I have work to do on the namespace. There's war in the old country. El_C 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly more and more reminds me of Ann Coulter. :) Seriously, her behaviour is clearly silly, but I guess we all need to drop this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting a smiley after a personal attack doesn't make it any less of one. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I guess accusing someone of being like Ann Coulter is a personal attack though, huh? --Cyde↔Weys 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

More like libel, as far as I'm concerned. Nonetheless, Kelly Martin's self-admitted WP:POINT violation and chaff-throwing distraction notwithstanding, she has still not offered a hint of a breath of a whisp of an iota of an explanation for the original list. Would she care to do so, or does she have any other bits of distraction gameplaying up her sleeve for our entertainment? --Calton | Talk 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this question at least three times that I can think of, including at least once on this page (page up a bit to see it). Stop asking it; asking it makes it look like you're posting without being informed of the full circumstances. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! you didn't answer the question three times, you gave non-answers three times that gave no actually hint of what they were really for. Saying that they exist only to help you improve wikipedia makes no sense. I do not understand why it is necessary to be so mysterious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, you're alleging that my answers were prevarications (or just lies). Do you believe that I am lying? Kelly Martin (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said that they were outright lies, I just said you answered the question without really saying anything. It was a very dodgy sort of answer. How does saying "I'm using the list to help improve wikipedia" explain anything about the actual puropose?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this question at least three times that I can think of, including at least once on this page... Since no such answer appears on this page -- using the definition of "answer" as used by native English speakers -- you'll have to point to the two other locations where you claim to have answered this very simple question. Hint: "Because" is not an actual answer. Oh, and if you don't like being accused of lying -- and you're the one who brought in the possibility, I should point out -- try telling the simple truth instead of working your way through the Big Book of Rhetorical Dodges. --Calton | Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a few reminders:

• Nothing in Wikipedia policy permits the use of blocking, or any other administrative tool, for "punishment". Tools such as blocking are only permitted to be used for narrow specific purposes to prevent harm to the project. They may not permissibly be used to "teach someone a lesson" or the like. Nor is blocking a form of dispute resolution; it is only a tool to stop damage to the project.
• WP:POINT does not permit blocking except for "egregious disruption". Nothing of the sort occurred here. Also, note that the policy deals with disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and uses examples such as systematic vandalism. Wikipedia was not disrupted here. Not everything you don't like is a disruption of the project.
• What seems to have occurred here, though, includes a violation of the well-known provision that administrators must not use blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. It is generally considered highly suspicious -- or at least in need of detailed and calm explanation -- when an administrator blocks someone they've been in a dispute of any sort with. --FOo 06:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, the blocking function is simply not a toy. This block was wholly inappropriate for a number of reasons outlined above, and also because it appears that hitting the block button is becoming the first action of an admin, and not the last. Steve block Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Take the name Kelly Martin out of it. Pretend Kelly Smith takes exactly the same actions (my apologies if there really is someone named Kelly Smith). Kelly Smith, along with some of her friends, creates a list that is apparantly composed mostly of people with whom she disagreed on an RFA. When asked why, she says it is to be used for "decision-making processes". When people express concern at being on the list, she refuses to give a more detailed explanation. After an administrator deletes the list, she recreates it multiple times. After another administrator informs her that she can be blocked for disruption, she creates the list again and then states that her sole purpose in doing so was to goad the administrator into blocking her. Does anyone honestly believe that Kelly Smith would not be blocked for some substantial period of time? This debate is silly - just being an admin doesn't give you the right to troll. BigDT 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Your statments asbout the pages recreation have factual errors. --Gmaxwell 13:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • One can not ignore the fact that it is Kelly Martin, since the fact that it is Kelly Martin is central to the debate. Many other admins and users have such lists, I see none of them being treated in a similar manner. The bottom line is that this is a page in a user's user space. It's not an attack page, so it's none of my damn business. There's certainly no call to put Kelly on notice as to what she can and cannot do in her user space. Arb-com can do that, maybe an RFC with a near unanimous consensus could do that. Kelly can't be disrupting unless the deleting admins are too. So should I put all of those on notice? Does anyone not believe this is all a waste of people's time. Frankly, I'm gutted I didn't get on the list. As to being a troll, I aim only to do that when reading my children bedtime stories, but please accept an apology for any offence my opinion caused you. Steve block Talk 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you point out any of these other userlists OTHER than the ones that were created in the last couple of days as a satire of this one? As for being an attack page, nobody ever said it was. What it is is at best votestacking, at worst, an attempt to intimidate. BigDT 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Robert the Bruce kept a list like this. So did Cool Cat at one point. Neither was ever blocked on account of the practice. El C's actions in purporting to "instruct" Kelly struck me as particularly inappropriate. I'm pleased that he relented from his block when significant opposition materialised. --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, Robert the Bruce kept a list ... but so did Nixon. And while we may not have blocked Nixon for it (yet; wait 'til ArbCom are finished, please), we certainly laughed at him a lot, and he's generally considered a very silly sausage indeed. I'd rather our admins didn't carry on like very silly sausages indeed, whether they have a cute little dog or not. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Tony has provided examples, I hope they will surfice. I'm baffled as to how an accusation of votestacking can be levelled, and as to intimidation, how can it be intimidation? I'll let you into a secret. There's a list out there on which I get top billing, and I am not bothered one bit. Frankly, I figured I was snooping through someone's user space and contributions and I deserved what I found. I have never worked out what the list is for, but since it has never done me any harm and has been around a year or so, I'm long past thinking about it. I hadn't given it a thought until this debate came up. Steve block Talk 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that they weren't blocked doesn't make it right. These lists are unacceptable, and users should be punished for their creation and especially for recreation.  Grue  13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Last I checked, we weren't in the business of punishing people. Take your Commie revenge talk elsewhere, pinko! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you need to check again? These times punitive blocks are commonplace.  Grue  14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm! Can I punitively block retrospectively? I sense I've a lot of catching up to do here. Coo-ee, boys! Remember back in 1987 when you made that smart remark about my hair? Well, now you're for it! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss to find any criteria these pages fit at WP:CSD, nor any blocking criteria their creation meets. If it ain't an attack page, it ain't actionable, and it's best left alone. How on earth does blocking people make anything any better? Why are these lists unacceptable? Because they exist? I'm still at a loss to understand what the problem here is. Steve block Talk 13:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, about 10 good reasons are that Kelly Martin herself has described them as wilfully disruptive, and basically described them as deliberate attempts to goad. That makes it trolling under any common definition. They count as easy-to-see problems in my book. I recall various verbs being put forward for what one might to do the troll(s), and none of them included giving them a hug and castigating any user who had the temerity to try to dispose of the problem. -Splash - tk 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't see how they were disruptive. I can't see anywhere that Kelly says they were, and I'm not advocating giving her a hug. If they are attempts to goad, then well done, they worked. Ah, stuff it. You can see why Wikipedia:Common sense never got made a policy or guideline. No-one recognises it. Cheers. Steve block Talk 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• [127] (a few posts up from here) is where Kelly self-describes her actions as disruptive and as deliberate attempts to goad people. Rare are the occasions when someone actually confesses to trolling and finds people moaning at those who try to deal with it. And just because it's not an attack page gives it a free pass?? -Splash - tk 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Tony comments that "Robert the Bruce kept a list like this. So did Cool Cat at one point. ". So what was the nature of their lists. A list of people who opposed their friend. Or a list of people whom have been disruptive while editing certain articles? I think we can all see a valid reason keeping the latter list. We are still waiting for a valid reason for the Kelly's list. As BigDT mentioned above, the only reasoning given to date is for "decision-making processes". Since I'm on this list I'd like to know a little bit more. As far as I can tell the parody of the lists and WP:POINT is all a distraction to avoid the important question. Smoke and mirrors anyone? David D. (Talk) 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  Both were what I would characterize as "enemies lists". Robert the Bruce kept a list of anti-circumcision activists. Cool Cat kept a list of various people, color coded in such a manner that one could easily gauge the quality of his relationship with each member. Why are "we" waiting for a valid reason for Kelly's list, by the way? The reason for Kelly's list is her own business. It does seem to have some of the character of an "enemies" list, however. --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  I will point out that I just noticed an answered to my question below. See this edit. One wonders why she didn't just come out and say it right from the begining. It seems like a perfectly reasonable answer and would not have resulted in this whole argument. I disagree it is her own buisness when it is in her user space. Clearly it could, and was, viewed as antagonistic without some sort of explanation. David D. (Talk) 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Put this on MfD. Computerjoe's talk 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

user:kjlee is using open proxies and is most likely a sock of user:lightbringer

user:kjlee started editting a few days ago and immediately/exculsively made edits to Freemasonry related articles exactly like a known banned user user:lightbringer. A Checkuser was requested and it was stated that he is using open proxies, which has been a tactic of LB in the past. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer has the information on this user and his MO. Can an admin please block his latest sock. Chtirrell 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop the madness

Okay people, listen up. Two things need to happen: people need to stop making lists, and admins need to stop blocking Kelly Martin. This has passed beyond ridiculous and borders on discrediting everybody with the sysop bit. If there's a real problem we have a dispute resolution process somewheres that we like to parrot. If, however, this is actually the Weekend Edition of Gorilla Theatre, then the joke isn't funny anymore and it's last call. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of amazing that the people who disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, troll, and wheel war are being judged as no more guilty than the people who try to stop them from disrupting the place. --W.marsh 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Surreal. El_C 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not rendering a judgement one way or the other. I think the whole business is ridiculous and need to stop. People need to start talking to each other and listening. This can't happen if we're running round deleting things and blocking people. Me, I spent the day dealing with the checkuser backlog and fiddling with the Disraeli article. I come back from dinner and find this mess. Mackensen (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe these blocks were done for the reason of trying to "stop disrupting the place"? One good way to inflame a conflict is to turn a stupid dispute over a page's contents (in this case miscellaneous lists) into a much larger conflict by abusing administrator tools. I don't know why El_C and Jonathunder tried these blocks, but they clearly weren't meant to resolve the situation. Maybe they just wanted their names on Kelly Martin's block log, who knows. --Cyde↔Weys 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, are you condoning what Kelly Martin is doing? I'm not saying a block was necessary, but you make it sound like Kelly Martin was just reading a romance novel peacefully in Central Park and all of a sudden El C and Jonathunder came around with these blocks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-reading my comment and I don't see a condonation anywhere. All I commented on was that I found these two blocks unwarranted and disruptive. --Cyde↔Weys 03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the other block. KM needed to cool down as she was engaging in WP:POINT for naught, upsetting editors. El_C 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The lists were created to troll for that reaction, this has been admitted. It's sad that people think trolling is healthy, and trying to stop someone from trolling isn't. But... yeah, using admin tools when you're involved in a dispute isn't so great (which is why I haven't done anything admin-ish with this whole mess). Though you yourself said you'd unblock her (presumably using admin tools) if she was blocked again, which seems kind of contradictory there as you're involved too.... --W.marsh 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I thought anyone who accuses someone else of violating good faith patently does not understand the good faith policy, as accusing someone else of violating an assumption of good faith is itself a violation of assumption of good faith [128]. The thing you have to understand is that just as you have strong opinions, those who disagree with you believe that their view is the correct one just as much as you believe your's is. --BigDT 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand my comment. That quote refers only to accusing someone of violating WP:AGF (which I find quite stupid). I don't see me accusing anyone of violating WP:AGF anywhere. --Cyde↔Weys 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's try this:

• No more blocks.
• No more lists.
• No more out-of-control, page- and namespace-hopping fight, hopefully? Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Namespacehopping? I've kept MY share of this nonsense entirely confined to my user space, except for replying here and on my talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly is namespace-hopping now. Whether or not any particular person is to blame for that is an interesting side point, but not really relevant in a discussion of how best to stop the conflict, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How is namespace-hopping even relevant to this? It's not like this is spilling out into the encyclopedic namespaces or anything. Lots of things move between userspace and wikipediaspace ... big deal. --Cyde↔Weys 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; forget the namespace bit then. The page-hopping is problematic in of itself. Kirill Lokshin 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that, either. So far the "disruption" has been limited to two sections of this page, my talk page, and perhaps a couple of other people's talk pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And MFD and several places on RFA... ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not MY doing. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not trying to assign blame here. Could you perhaps not make any more unexplained lists of users? It would really make things a lot calmer all around, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

<Snicker> I seem to recall a sociological experiment which deliberately created a similar situation. People went utterly nuts! If someone with more time than I do would care to look it up, that'd be great. Perhaps someday this story will be added to the textbooks as another example! :-) Kim Bruning 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As a bystander who just happens to be on the list, with no real knowledge of how the upper-clique of admins work, I'd like to point out that when Kelly Martin says "not MY fault" doesn't seem to fit with her statement that this is exactly what she expected to happen. [129] Themindset 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I think Mackensen has an excellent suggestion there. Kelly: yes, it's been in your userspace. Regardless, some people have a problem with that. I assume you wouldn't be here defending yourself if people weren't perpetuating the issue, but it's like a battle, there needs to be a cease fire. The way to do that is to move on to other things and don't exacerbate the situation by creating more of these lists. Okay? El C & others: yes, I think you may have a point, Kelly Martin was being contentious, possibly disruptive, blah blah blah. It's not World War III. Why don't we just move on, forget about it for a day, and if it still bothers you, go through the full dispute resolution thing. Then we can get back to building a great encyclopedia. Mangojuice^talk 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we building a great encyclopedia here? I don't think there are enough good Wikipedians around to actually build a good -- let alone great -- encyclopedia. See the report on my behavior above, for example. Out of the entire Wikipedia population, I think there are only five or ten good users who don't use long signatures, who write great articles (that reach featured article status and can be cited by others), who are friendly, who always get along with others, and who have never made a mistake. (I say "never" because I mean it. If anyone makes a mistake on Wikipedia, then their contributions are instantly and permanently devalued.) Don't give me that "we're only human" crap either. --Elkman 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think myself that people are too hard on Kelly because of the userbox mess from months ago. Everything she does is scrutinized and over scrutinized. Her lists are not desirable but I'm still not sure what rules she is violating here. AGF is too vague for me, especially for a block. And are we building a great encyclopedia? What the heck does that have to do with anything? --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well I supported KM on that front (some misgivings now, though my hate for userboxes continues to know no bounds), but here she was simply wasting everyone's time and energy, I felt. I know some users were intimidated by her cryptic lists, which remain unexplained. El_C 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: all the "great encyclopedia" bravado, I created ~80 articles in the last month and performed numerous administrative tasks. If you want my (and others') time and expertise, don't treat us with contempt. El_C 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then don't act in a manner deserving of contempt. Rebecca 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

These one-sided, tired one-liners are unimpressive. El_C 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I dare say, we have a pro-KM clique-like mentality with responses that could be predicted with some regularity. El_C 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree (w.r.t the one-liners; don't know anything about KM or cliques). WP:CIVIL does not have an escape clause for "if they reely, reely deserve it", Rebecca. Please see further up this page where an editor's unthinking frustration led to a checkuser admin quitting the task, which is going to result in actual, real harm to the project because there are so few. Why did this happen? Because an otherwise positive user forgot that everyone here is a volunteer, and you don't dump on volunteers or they walk away. Please respect that. Kasreyn 07:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent→)

(←Unindent) I agree quite strongly with that principle. Even so, Rebecca and El_C are both established editors who both have too much time and effort invested to just walk away. They're just blowing off harmless steam at each other. :-) So I'm not too worried about that part, at least not today. ;-)

I do agree they could set a better example though, of course. <crosseyed look> Kim Bruning 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin/T. Oh, so witty! --Conti|✉ 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "witty", it looks like that page has a valid purpose ... she's doing an analysis on RFAs that were malformatted or withdrawn early. Maybe she's looking at ways to overhaul the RFA process. But I don't think this reflexive "OMG she's out to do something evil" response is very constructive. I just wish she would put an explanation or something. --Cyde↔Weys 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

An explanation would actually stop this whole mess completly. And I wasn't saying that it's an evil page, but that it's incredibly silly to continue to create new pages like these without any explanation. --Conti|✉ 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Those of you who pay attention to Wikimania may have noticed that I am doing a presentation on consensus. I am actually (with Gmaxwell's invaluable help) doing some research into things like voting patterns on RfA and AfD, and other such things, with the hopes of using the findings as part of that presentation or perhaps for later purposes. (I imagine very few of you know that I was a political science minor in college.) I don't think that such examination of Wikipedia's processes should be considered "disruptive", but I'm sure that someone will be quite ready to accuse me of it nonetheless, as it seems that there are certain elements of the community that are simply completely incapable of extending even the slightest bit of good faith to me. That particular page is data that Gmaxwell generously provided me; I created it there partially to work on it and partially to see who would react badly to it. Looks like Conti wins today's ABF prize. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Well, actually I'm quite content with that answer, as I mentioned above. I wasn't saying that the list was bad or another attempt of yours to take over the world, and I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my words that way. Writing a tiny little bit about why your subpages exist before anyone has to ask isn't going to hurt, really. (Especially after all this.) --Conti|✉ 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So, should I expect an interrogation here every time I create a subpage in my user space? Am I now required to post announcements regarding my every action? We treat convicted criminals better than this. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not required to do anything. A small message on those subpages, writing what the point of them is would be quite cool, tho. This would actually reduce people going on your nerves by asking questions quite alot, I think. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why has this gotten so blown out of proportion? So Kelly created a list, so what? There is no policy against having a list of users. There was no stated malicious intent by having a list. And unless malicious actions by Kelly were taken based on that list any assumptions of malicious intent a blatantly against WP:AGF. That list was just a list until Kelly's actions say otherwise or she states outright that it's a list being used for a malicous purpose. Neither of these conditions have been met. The only against policy actions have been taken by the two admins who blocked Kelly against policy and by anyone assuming the list has some bad intention behind it in direct violation of WP:AGF. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To avoid undue repetition, I urge everyone to save the just an innocent list arguments and AGF invocations for the forthcoming RfAr. El_C 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as your own conduct will bear equally close scrutiny. Thatcher131 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect with near-absolute certainty that it would, but that's not for me to decide. El_C 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Now now, no need to threaten him. However I would suggest holding off on an Arbcom on this as there really isn't any grounds for it. And frankly the people who have been giving Kelly a hard time are more likely to come out of the Arbcom with some form of sanction against them since Kelly did absolutely nothing wrong. However the same can't be said for several reactionary people accusing her of being "evil". JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It was in no way a threat, and I'm sorry if anyone took it that way (as if I could issue threats on behalf of anyone, much less Arbcom). It's just that Arbcom has a way of looking at both sides of a dispute. Thatcher131 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no real dispute here which is why this is so funny. There is Kelly who created a list for her own reasons (which per WP:AGF policy have to be assumed to be good unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, which none has been presented). And then there are those that take exception to a list existing, basing those objections on no solid policy or guideline except their own violation of WP:AGF. Doesn't seem like a dispute to me. The attacking parties think they are owed some explaination by Kelly, but she is under no obligation to do so and it should have been dropped there. Instead several users have taken to blocking Kelly, against policy again. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; in any case, I am undaunted. But I also feel this discussion is outliving its usefluness. El_C 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you're going to open an arbcom please let users know. I for one will have 150+ words I'd like to get in edgewise. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, edge or otherwise. El_C 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kaleen, Australian Capital Territory

Please look at the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleen%2C_Australian_Capital_Territory. It has been repeatedly vandalised by 137.92.97.111 , Princeofkaleen, 58.169.8.255, Grizzlydeer, and 137.154.16.30.

Note that 210.9.138.222 is me as an unregistered user, and that my contribution was an attempt to remove the graffiti. Thanks! They come along about once every month... There's absolutely no need to act here. You can always sign up for a user account and get access to a watchlist to more easily monitor changes to the page though. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 04:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User Removing Warnings and Stonewalling pages

• For some reason, whenever I post here, it gets ignored. Let's hope that doesn't happen this time.

• ED209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently removed an NPA and a AGF warning from his page. I would do something about it, but if I do, he'll just accuse me of vandalism. In addition, after removing them from his page, he copy/pasted them onto my page. I removed them as nonsense, but if an administrator could step in, it'd be much appreciated. Secondly, the same user is stonewalling any additions to Michael Di Biase. I have spent the last 3 days attempting to compromise, changing a dispute paragraph, providing citations, making it as neutral as humanly possible, yet he continues to make up total nonsense as reason not to include it. Not to mention his nonstop personal attacks. Honestly I feel as if I'm being assaulted from all sides here... I'd really appreciate some help. Again, could someone please step in and make a ruling here? His antics are preventing any progress on Vaughan related articles. - pm_shef 04:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a warning about it the whole thing. Looks like he is very involved with articles related to Vaughan, Ontario, and has POV issues all over the place. Maybe a Request for comments is in order. Circeus 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Anybody who actually gets involved with this dispute better read the entire history of the situation. user:pm_shef is guilty of everything he accuses me. When he removes warnings from his talkpage it is fine, when I do it he calls it vandalism. His additions to the Michael Di Biase page are POV. His father is a Vaughan Councillor. He was quoted in the local newspaper as being a watchdog for Vaughan-related pages on the orders of his father. He has attacked me on many occasions, he is condescenting, and never assumes good faith. He has acted as a bully to me as a relatively new user. He has accused me of being a sockpuppet for user:VaughanWatch. I was proven innocent through an IP check and by the support of many admins. He still insinuates somehow connected to that user. Please help. ED209 04:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • This entire situation looks like it really needs Mediation. And user:pm shef has not removed any warnings from his talk. Your adition was clearly retaliatory. Circeus 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think ED here is referring to this which he added... and are baseless... Sasquatch t|c 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really a strange situation. It seems every day or so, a "new" user or a user that has been dormant for months comes out of the woodworks and adds really POV information in either the Vaughan municipal election, 2006 article or the one about Di Biase. As a sample, see this edit that actually starts to mention this edit war in the article. Also, through all of this, I have not seen pm_shef make a personal attack or add anything that was too POV even though he has been significantly provoked. -- JamesTeterenko 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• This edit has user:pm_shef deleting what I deem to be crucial information to his talk page. Admins and other users need to see this article to understand the situation. Yet, user:pm_shef deletes this. When I delete his sarcastic warnings off my page, he reports me. Go figure. ED209 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the entire Vaughan dispute, but something is definitely going on here. Both users are now having rather ridiculous quabbling on my talk page. ED, linkslike tehse do not belong there anyway and pm and every right to remove them. If anything they should have been posted on the proper article talk page. Circeus 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'm familiar with the Vaughan wars and all the players. Mangojuice^talk 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope you do better at damage control than me. On my side, I shall go to bed, as it is past one in the morning here. Circeus 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

another troll/vandal

KJFhjf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Brand new account, vandalizes several random pages (see contribs), jumps into Klerck AfD to press for deletion, [130] and deletes a related section from Two Towers film article [131] with no edit summary. Might be sock of Werto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

-- Phr (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: see also RumDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who came in via the same IP as User:Werto according to User_talk:RumDuck. That IP has been blatantvandal-blocked several times and RumDuck appears to be a vandal [132]. Ryulong's post a few sections up has some more info. Phr (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:South Philly, repeated editing of another's signed comments, and incivility

This user has repeatedly Changed people's comments, contrary to the vandalism policy, in the process misrepresenting the intent of the nominator of an WP:SFD listing ([133], [134], [135]), interleaved with highly discourteous denials and evasions of the point ([136], [137], [138], [139]) in response to my several requests that he cease doing so. I'd block him myself, but I'd prefer to avoid suggestions of being "too involved" (as the person reverting the vandalism and misrepresentation, the one on the receiving end of the incivility, and the one getting quite frankly highly annoyed at the whole business). At the very least, can someone else tell him to knock it off? The claims of "harassment", WP:DICK "cites" (great idea that, a page that lets people dispense insults purporting to be project-space references), and "only you have a problem with this" jibes are extremely wearing. Alai 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice that in a previous discussion on the user's talk page, after being blocked for inappropriate use of fair-use images on his user page, he used the same insult against the admin who blocked him: [140]. Use of WP:DICK to insult others seems to be a way of life for South Philly. Kasreyn 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents

The page Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents has been created in main namespace, which seems to be the wrong place for it. Could some one please work out were the best place (Wikipedia:?) and move it, thank you. --Blue520 06:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry now known as Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents. --Blue520 06:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved this to Wikipedia:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents. --Tony Sidaway 07:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And, in turn, I've moved it to Wikipedia:Iran, Shi'a, and Middle East related articles noticeboard/Incidents. I am not involved with the project - I'm just applying consistent capitalization and word usage to the page name. ("Iran" and "Middle East" are both nouns, so the adjective "Shiite" doesn't really fit in.) Yes, I fixed the double redirects too. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Friedrich Bauder block please

He made an edit to Template:Dispute-resolution indicating that he is a sock or imitator fo the Communism vandal. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 06:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with a couple hours ago (as of now). Essjay (Talk) 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin User:InShaneee is removing content from my talk page

This is a complaint regarding the behavior of Admin User:InShaneee, who removed content from my talk page (and that of others) which he claims to have identified as spam. There is no official wikipedia policy to remove internal spams on sight, as can be seen on the spams policy page. In general, removing content from talk pages is considered vandalism, and according to policy the only exception to that is removing personal attacks, which does not include spam. So technically this admin does not have a right to remove those posts from my page, and in doing so has obviously violated vandalism policy. The admin claims that these actions constitute common wikipedia practice. As they are, however, clearly against wikipedia policy, I asked him to stop them, so far without success. This informal complaint is a result of that fruitless discussion. Shervink 08:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

When did he do that? Please provide the diffs. Thanks --Aminz 08:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably here. Looks like a pretty clear-cut case of vote stacking by Zereshk (talk · contribs). Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job by Inshaneee of mopping up this attempt to stack an AfD, and if Shervink wants the edit back he only has to re-revert. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, InShaneee's removal of Zereshk's post is just a symbolic action, since people will get the "You have new messages" anyway.

But no worries, we have now Wikipedia:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents. Also, Shervink, be careful! Though you may not know the policy and this might be your first time, BUT you may be accused of being vowed to continue (read it with a particular stress on the word "vowed" please) accusation of vandalism and subsequently blocked for 48 hours which is longer than the typical 24 hours. Some of us here are good in reading your mind. --Aminz 08:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, even if you have over 15,000 edits to nearly 3,000 articles and after this long time of being in wikipedia, this is your first time doing something, then you are "vowed" to do it again. Since you are in serious need of doing that everyday! --Aminz 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's not the end of story. Some other admins will congrat the admin who has special talent in reading your mind for his good job! Wonderful! Can it be even better? --Aminz 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, maybe I'm not clear on this, but the message in the provided diff didn't seem to request a vote in either direction, it simply served to notify the user that a vote was taking place. Or were there other messages he placed which did ask for a specific kind of vote? I'm not clear on the policy here, so I would like to request that it be clarified: under what circumstances, if ever, is it appropriate to alert someone to an ongoing poll or vote? Kasreyn 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A vote can nicely be stacked by selecting which users should be informed about it and which not, without giving anybody explicit instructions about how to vote...--Stephan Schulz 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the attempt can be made, but if someone who believes the opposite sees that talk page, they will be informed as well. I'm just curious what the actual policy is. Kasreyn 21:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A new research at the university of Wikipedia named "World through the eyes of different Admins" has shown that some people first take a position towards a matter and then try to find a reason to justify that position. --Aminz 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm sorry but I really do not understand what you are talking about, especially that metaphysical stuff about reading my mind. You mean you want to have me blocked based on what you think I think? I think you should think that over. All I'm asking is a quote for which policies allow that admin to remove content from my talk page. He is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Spamming, none of which identify internal spamming as vandalism and none of which allow it to be removed from a talk page by third parties. Shervink 09:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

Shervink, I am not an admin. Were I, I wouldn't have been ignored [141]. If I were an admin, other admins would have NOT disputed my wrong decisions even when an editor cries for a tiny bit of attention and calls other admins for just looking into my so-called "light" punishment imposed on some other editor.--Aminz 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Arminz, your style of writing is rather involuted and does not parse well. I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Could you be more plain? Kasreyn 09:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, I didn't have much experience with both Zereshk and InShaneee, when I was involved in Zereshk's block by InShaneee. Zereshk asked all persian editors whom he knew, to vote for the AfD of the article Misconceptions about Iran (or moved to Views of Iran in Media or something similar). Well, Zereshk was spamming. It was his first time and he didn't know about the policy at all (as I can argue he even now doesn't know the details of what has happened to him now). From the very beginning, InShaneee was warning him of getting blocked. I have been around in wikipedia for awhile. I know, nobody gives a {{test4}} for a first time vandalism for example. Anyhow, I was at that time surprised with InShaneee's warning. Aside from the fact that Zereshk has over 15,000 edits to nearly 3,000 articles and this was his first time doing spamming, I told him that yes, he has done spamming but he was only notifying editors who have experience of living in both west and Iran. Zereshk added that some editors whom he has notified have given votes against his vote. Anyways, I asked the other editor who first reported Zereshk to notify several other editors on his choice. It was considered against policy and it passed. Please continue the story in the section on Zereshk here:[142] I was mainly objecting to the length of Zereshk's block and and that his controversial comments could be read or understood in other ways. I was "only" asking another admin to just "look into" this case. Nothing more. --Aminz 10:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This confusion probably would have been avoided with an explanatory edit summary (no offense to InShanneee, not all of anyone's edit summaries are exemplary). I've noticed that many admins and veteran editors get huffy when someone removes content from their talk page, often saying that they can decide things for themselves, yet they do it to others without due consideration or explanation (I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case). Also, while it looks like vote stacking in this case to me, whether it is vote stacking, and therefore whether it should be removed, is usually decided by someone who disagrees with the alleged vote stacker's opinion, which is less than ideal. Removing the comments may not do much good, anyway, since editors will still get a new message notification and they can see the deleted text in the history of their talk pages. Finally, while I am opposed to what he was trying to do, if AfD is really not a vote, how can there be vote stacking? -- Kjkolb 09:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We are getting off-topic here. The point is this: As far as one can see from the actualpolicy, internal spamming is not vandalism:

Wikipedia editors are not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that [t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki...

As you see, no mention of vandalism, let alone a request to remove by third parties. In a sense, it is a matter of point of view how much cross-posting is aggressive. Even then, it is not vandalism according to policy, and is not to be removed.

On the other policy page we read under types of vandalism:

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page ...

Thus, no mention of a legitimate deletion of internal spam or cross posting. According to policy, The deletion of those comments is thus vandalism. Shervink 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

• Um, Zereshk (talk · contribs) edited over 20 user talk pages in the space of 14 minutes, adding requests for users to vote in the afd. As you state, Wikipedia:Spamming policy notes Wikipedia editors are not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc. The policy at Wikipedia:Vandalism allows spam to be removed. Steve block Talk 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Aminz's comments above are simply mocking me over my block of Zereshk (I told him to stop spamming, he said he'd continue, so I blocked him)(incidentally, his user page is now a giant rant about the evils of me and wikipedia). As for my actions, I only wish that policy allowed me to delete the edits from the page history entirely, since rolling back the spam messages did almost nothing to stem the tide of one-sided votes. --InShaneee 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not untroubling

On Su-Laine Yeo's talkpage there is a comment by Heptor (17:34, 6 July 2006). Inbedded in that comment is a message in Chinese (Hanyu Pinyin), added by an IP [143]. It translates as follows: (secret/confidential) Su-Laine, could you please help me out. A friend wrote me an email and told me there is people who think that I am you. Don't know why. It's a mess. Could you please quickly on here tell them that you think homey is zion's son/zion's daughter. [name removed] is too much trouble (maybe he wants to die?). Thank you. I am clueless as to what this is all about but the message spooked me out. I trust hope there is people here who knows (if this should be handled, and if so) how to handle this. Thanks. אנונימוס Date: 10:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything really can be done. I don't even understand the translation. I gave him a warning but I had to say 'if' it was true because I can't read it. The IP is from Sweden and I don't understand at all. Yeah... if I understood more maybe I could be more helpful. gren グレン 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Has Su-Laine said anything about this? --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The translation is correct. However, as the above is the only contribution of its author, I suggest we stop scratching our heads on this unless evidence comes forth that User:TemporaryJohnSmith was not just trolling. Kusma (討論) 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is actually the first time I noticed the comment. I don't understand Chinese, by the way. It was added as part of vandalism that I mostly reverted, but I didn't notice this part. I'm going to remove it from my talk page now. I figure that the IP who added this is just up to create chaos around the Homeontherange sockpuppetry case. Su-Laine Yeo 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryan4

Could someone else please take a look at Ryan4 (talk · contribs)? It seems to me he's spamming -- basically inserting advertising for an online book this time -- but I'd like another opinion or three. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam. The Crux of World History by Francisco Gil-White may be a great book, but if its not being cited as a source, adding it to multiple articles (how many? I got tired before I could count all the articles) in External links is spamming. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really starting to get tired of JPGordon's personal vendetta against me. It's not spamming because: 1. The link is NOT COMMERCIAL, i.e. it provides no services for any fees, therefore it also 2. cannot be advertising. I added links to The Crux on pages such as The Greco-Persian conflict, Ezra, Nehemaiah, and Artaxerxes because there are specific chapters in the Book that present a very interesting Historical analysis of those particular topics, with specific reference to the history of the class conflict between the Jewish people and the Greeks and Romans around the time of the 1st Century. What on earth is spam about that? The only true guidelines about adding external links are that they cannot be the person's own website, they cannot be commercial links, and the amount of one particular viepoint should not dominate if that viewpoint is out of the mainstream. I have broken none of those rules. Ryan4^Talk 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Personal vendetta"? What would I possibly want vengeance for? You've done nothing to offend me one way or another. However, anytime anyone inserts identical links into over a dozen articles in twenty minutes, those links are going to undergo very strong scrutiny. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The unpublished book appears to offer an highly opinionated view of history (Chapter 1: The Roman ‘Final Solution’ in the first and second centuries; why it happened, and why you never heard about it. Chapter 2: Enter the villain: Alexander.) Further the author, Francisco Gil-White, does not seem to be significantly more notable than most professors. -Will Beback 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As an unpublished work, the link cannot be intended to serve as a reliable source. The link is being added to all these articles to promote Gil-White. It's spam, even if it's not commercial. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

70.59.95.119 (talk · contribs) has been using the edit summery to make death threats and racist/nationalist/antisemitic comments. Major and intentional breach of NPA, CIVIL, etc. Someone check out the contribs and ban immediately befor more damage can be done. ---J.S (t|c) 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has blocked the IP recently. Please take such matters to WP:AIV in the future, where you will likely get a quicker reaction. -- JamesTeterenko 14:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't seem like vandalism to me. Just violations of 8 other rules. ---J.S (t|c) 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally regard such blatently racist comments as vandalism, especially with no other contributions. I see that some of his comments have been deleted from article histories already because they were so bad. I wouldn't hesitate blocking the IP if I saw this on AIV. -- JamesTeterenko 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism at hannah spearritt

sorry if this is the wrong place etc. etc. - 81.170.59.56 has been vandalising Hannah_Spearritt for half hour or so, and has now created an account, User:Maxclifford (name of a famous PR guy / scandal merchant in UK) - and carried on.... hope this helps! Petesmiles 14:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked; and, WP:AIV is where this goes in the future. Thanks! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

New PoolGuy antics

So it appears PoolGuy is using some interesting new avenues for his complaints.

First, there's this Mediation Cabal case I stumbled across a few days ago that smelled funny to me, as I regularly read these pages and have followed the PoolGuy situation; today, User:AquaticTheory posted detail outlining that the complaint being made involves the GoldToeMarionette RFCU that he apparently feels was done without proper justification. (I assume this follows along after the rejection of the ArbCom case on that topic.)

Then there's this discussion that started from the Association of Member Advocates page, in which User:WelshCountryside tells the same story as AquaticTheory, though hasn't filled out the detail quite yet.

I posted both of these links to User:Mackensen's page after spotting them and seeing he had been involved with the RFCU side of things, but after seeing the new detail posted today, thought a post here would be appropriate. Tony Fox (speak) 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked both as obvious socks of banned editor User:PoolGuy. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User removing warnings from his talk page

What do we do in this situation? [144] --Liface 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pgk protected the talkpage so the user can't remove warnings anymore. 207.145.133.34 19:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nomae

I've given User:Nomae a warning about dubious edits. Frankly, I think I'm being very generous in extending any assumption of good faith here. Someone may want to keep an eye on him. - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing CFD notices and removing proposal from CFD

Please investigate the behaviour of BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). She is removing the notices from categories which I have tagged for discussion at CFD, and striking out the cats from the CFD page itself. --Mais oui! 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like she is objecting to you tacking on those categories onto an existing merge discussion. Feel free to create a new discussion (and include a link to the original, please). Syrthiss 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Syrthiss. You are correct: my objection is solely to their being tacked onto an existing merge discussion, which I feel raises some subtlely different issues (although user:Mais oui! disagrees). Please may I have some admin assistance in preventing them from being tacked on the existing CFM? User:Mais oui! and I are getting into an edit-warring situation, which I find very unpleasant, and there is a simple solution available through a separate CFM, where we can see if any separate issues create a different consensus. --BrownHairedGirl 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Libellous use of my username

User:Pat Paine was recently set up, and left an offensive message on my talk page. His entire userpage is the same message. I have reason to believe this user is User:NickTellis who got irate and abusive when I deleted a piece of his vandalism. He is the roommate of another WP editor, whose name I do not want to disclose as he is a responsible editor. Pat Payne 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: He has also vandalized my userpage placing libellous content there. [[145]]Pat Payne 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for the inappropriate username. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:EccentricRichard

This user edited User:Mike Rosoft's userpage (diff), adding references to Josef Stalin and "Wikipedia is Communism". He also edited a user subpage (User:Mike Rosoft/Spambot) and changed all User:Mike Rosoft's spambot links to a an email address purporting to be Stalin's... I reverted his edits and the user (I assume it to be Richard) then edited (diff) my userpage from an IP, adding in the WiC and Stalin references. I think he should be blocked as the Communism Vandal or more likely an impostor of. — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mantanmoreland using a sockpuppet and violating policies

User:Mantanmoreland has been editing Gary Weiss along with his sockpuppet User:Lastexit. See Fred Bauder's comments at [146]. Both accounts have harrassed User:WordBomb who attempted to edit the article but was blocked indefinitely. Both Mantonmoreland and Lastexit have voted on at least one AFD[147]. 130.15.164.51 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lastexit hasn't edited the article since April 29. Do you have any evidence that sockpuppet abuse is continuing now? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The AFD in which they both voted ended May 18. They continue to edit the same articles, for instance Naked short selling which LastExit last edited on July 20[148] and Mantanmoreland last edited on July 22. WordBomb is still blocked indefinitely for having edited Gary Weiss and having accused Mantanmoreland of using a sockpuppet. This means there has also been possible Admin abuse that should be looked at. 130.15.164.51 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WordBomb's edit history shows nothing that justifies a block[149], certainly not an indefinite one which should only be handed down by Jimbo or by the ArbComm, not by an admin acting on her own. 130.15.164.51 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WordBomb is blocked indefinitely for having posted what he believes are an editor's personal details. When asked for an assurance that it wouldn't happen again, he reposted them on his talk page. Since then, he has been harassing various people by e-mail, and has evaded the block several times with sockpuppets. He has made no useful contributions and should definitely stay blocked. As for the sockpuppet allegations, FloNight and Fred Bauder are dealing with the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't WordBomb do this the second time after you asked for proof of the sockpuppet allegation?130.15.164.51 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gary Weiss has been accused of editing his biographical article under a pseudonym. Shouldn't Wikipedia:Autobiography apply here?130.15.164.81 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Myself and User:Ghirlandajo, again

moved to AN, after consideration Circeus 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

History Student (talk · contribs)

User was recently blocked for repeated attempts to recreate deleted article Japanese American Evacuation of 1942, as well as behavior noted in this RfC. Has appeared again in the discussion of Japanese American internment as 69.57.136.39 (talk · contribs) and 70.129.12.61 (talk · contribs) and admits to spoofing his IP address to get around the block [150]. --NeoChaosX 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I noted on the talk page of that RFC the pile o potential sockpuppets he created, listed (and blocked) at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of History Student. --Syrthiss 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Common reasons for blocks and blocking policies Azmoc (talk • contribs • count)

I have already stated that I don't like the common practice when people are blocked / sent to a "cooling-off" period for non-extreme incivility, dubious personal attacks or minor disruptions. These should be treated by ignoring, walking away, calmly discussing and not by blocking. The policies clearly state, that an editor should only be blocked for personal attacks in extreme cases, and that blocks are not punitive but preventive. I don't know form what Zoe wanted to prevent me by issuing the last block, probably from commenting his/her mocking of what I did on wikipedia. Anyway, what we actually have here are policies, that say one thing (block only preventive, in extreme cases) and then we have the admin consensus, that it is OK to block for minor PA/disruption and any argumentation in the sense of "this shouldn't be done according to the policies" is defaced as "wikilawyering". The reason for only blocking in extreme cases is clear, admins shouldn't offend editors who might have a lot of work on wikipedia behind them and get involved in a heated debate by blocking them right away. It is only laziness that the admins block so often. Azmoc 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[151] another example of harrassment. I don't want to be told "now stop that" because I tried to send a nice message to wikipedia users, I don't want to hear "wikilawyering" everytime I say something, and now what JzG said is a complete nonsense, as I didn't mention any rule or policy. Please somebody tell JzG to stop harrassing me. Azmoc 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• What part of the "No solicitation" at the top of my talk page was unclear? Talk page spammers should expect to rough it. The fifteen-minute block was wholly appropriate as it stopped the spamming. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "nice" message. You're telling people they're wasting their time here, and they should go volunteer somewhere else, and you were spamming it all over the place. I was going to block you myself but Cyde did it first. Antandrus (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a fifteen minute block was way too lenient for someone spamming 'leave wikipedia' notices. --InShaneee 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't solicit for noone, I am not associated with any NGO that would need volunteers, and saying the truth about what you have to give up to be a "wikipedian" doesn't break any policies or rules here, does it? Anyway, I am going to use the message only occassionaly, so don't worry about the spamming. Azmoc 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used at ALL. This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean this is the place to go telling it to everyone. --InShaneee 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? You do that too, right? You discuss the functioning of wikipedia with other users, right? You even have special places for it, right? Like village pump, right? Azmoc 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am previously uninvolved. I've reviewed this user's contributions and history (Azmoc (talk • contribs • count)) and support the current block of 48 hours. Azmoc needs to stop leaving disruptive messages and wikilawyering about it. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(He's not currently blocked, the 48 hours was an old, unrelated block). --InShaneee 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, Lar. You reviewed my contributions and history thoroughly, I can see. Thank you for your uninformed assumptions. I am User:Ackoz previously, maybe you would want to check that out too, your way of investigating (i.e. checking nothing at all, just babbling) would find that I have like 500 indefinite blocks on that nick. Greetings. Azmoc 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Care to explain the extra semicolon? [152] Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, was not intentional. Too many users posting and I got into like 5 edit conflicts. Azmoc 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

SPUI (talk · contribs)

User:SPUI in continuing to ignore sanctions put in place by the Arbcom 3 weeks ago with regard to state highway articles. On Minnesota State Highway 33 SPUI has engaged in an revert/edit war with User:Jonathunder in direct violation of section 2.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways which explicitly prohibits himself and any other involved parties from engaging in disruptive editing of highway articles. Full text of the decision is as following "2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans." He's violated this many times since the end of arbcom, this is just the latest time. --JohnnyBGood 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this belongs on Arbitration Enforcement actually? 207.145.133.34 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No one ever reads that board, hence I've put it here. --JohnnyBGood 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well. I sometimes read it. In any case I've had a word with SPUI and Jonathunder over Minnesota State Highway 33. SPUI has reacted well to such reminders in the recent past so I expect that will be the end of it in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How many warnings does he get. This is the second or third time in a week you've warned him. He's violating his probation, you obviously agree or you wouldn't be warning him. Are the warnings indefinite as long as he moves his disruption around? Cause if so I'd like to make some controversial edits that could be seen as disruptive but have so far restrained myself. --JohnnyBGood 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also he's obviously not receptive to such warnings if he's continuing to edit war just at different articles. --JohnnyBGood 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm being patient and reasonable. If SPUI continues to get into these little squabbles despite multiple warnings, he may find himself sanctioned. In the past there has been a lack of community confidence in enforcement actions taken against SPUI, and I'm sure you agree that it wouldn't be sensible to impose a sanction only to have it overturned. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

True there has been SOME irregularity in sanctions against him in the past (most of the sanctions were justified in the past if just through the sheer number of them). But that was before there was a set ruling against him written in the perverbial cyber stone saying he can't do this anymore. Yet he continues to do so. Sanctions at this point have arbcom backing when it comes to disruption of highway articles and any admin wheelwarring a block against him now is violating the arbcom ruling. You understand my fustration here. If he's on probation he should be on probation, otherwise call it what it is and say the probation means jack shit and he, myself and any other editors subject to it don't have to follow it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What about blocking and banning the idiot who came up with an article about Highway 33 in the first place? We don't need articles about Minnesota highways on here. Nor do we need articles about "historic places" in Minnesota, like the author's other contributions. If nobody had created the article on Highway 33 (with an admittedly wrong title, to boot), this fiasco would never have started. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

user:JzG

I posted a new version of my message on his talk. I notified him, that I am not mass-posting this and that I am only giving this message to him. One message doesn't qualify as spamming in any sense. I only post this here because I think he is going to block me for that post with the reason spam Azmoc 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For someone who claims to want to do so much good, your attitude toward your fellow editors isn't that great. People spend their time here because they've chosen to do so. We are all capable of making our own choices here and aware of the options. If you think this is a waste of time, you are welcome to go elsewhere, but you may not disrupt this community to do so. Please do not post your message any further, especially not to those who have removed your previous messages to them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people watch television for 6 hours a day because they've chosen so. They are capable of making their choices, and aware of the options. Still, I will tell them that they should reconsider if they are spending their time wisely, and advise them to do something else. Wikipedia is the same addiction. I advise people to reconsider what they are doing. Azmoc 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't go into a church and preach evolution. Go preach it somewhere else. Sasquatch t|c 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for activism, and it is most certainly not the place for anti-Wikipedia activism.--SB | T 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? That's a weird position. Actually, if more churchgoers understood science then we wouldn't have such ridiculous situations as the president getting away with using his first veto on life-saving research. I say we go into more churches and teach evolution. If anything, the statement you meant to say is "Don't go into a science classroom and teach creationism." --Cyde↔Weys 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See - you would also go into the church. So don't blame me for this one. Azmoc 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I support (and would be glad to carry out) a short block of Azmoc for disruption should he post this sort of message again. --InShaneee 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a very long block, either. Anti-Wikipedia activism is something we shouldn't tolerate here, for obvious practical reasons. Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless he is actively disrupting Wikipedia right now, or is credibly threatening to do so, a block for disruption per se is not appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly threatening to continue posting his message. I would say that's credible enough for our purposes. Kirill Lokshin 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was like half an hour ago, Mr. Manipulator. After that I said, lets bring this to ArbCom, I don't want to get blocked. Azmoc 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't preach. I am telling the person sitting next to me in a church that I don't believe in everything the priest says. Am I not allowed to do that in a church? And who told you that this was a anti-wikipedia activism? Let's get this to the ArbCom, I don't want to be blocked and I want to use that message. Azmoc 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Any more of this nonsense Wikilawyering and I will block for a nice long time. --Cyde↔Weys 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For what? Stop threatening me. Azmoc 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between threats and warnings. You've been warned, and I suggest you take it to heart. --InShaneee 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're going to a church and telling the person beside you that they are wasting there time and that they should stop going to church... And I concur with Cyde. Despite his rather sarcastic comment about preaching creationism :-P Sasquatch t|c 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Warned? For what? For preaching? You really make me laugh. Azmoc 22:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first copy of The Origin of Species, etc... :-D -- ChrisO 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, although I am not breaking any rules here, I will not use that message. I will, however sometimes say something similar on users' talkpages, it will not have a form of a pre-formulated message, I will take the care and formulate my thoughts each time in a new way. Sorry but there's nothing you could do against that even if you don't like that. Azmoc 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, no. Messages asking people to avoid contributing to Wikipedia are not acceptable, regarless of whether they're pre-formatted or not. Kirill Lokshin 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why??? Some people do place messages like "remind me if I contribute too much" on their pages. Who said it was not acceptable? Did you decide? Did the community decide? Who decided? I guess its just you Kirill, so stop harrassing me I am not afraid of you. Azmoc 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

blocked indefinitey dissruption in the form of trying to stop major contributers from doing so and trolling. I'm not interested in playing games. Further justifaction under the rules can be provided if needed.Geni 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance. Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. He's done nothing but be disruptive for a long time. Look at the edit history of his previous IP [153] as well. Antandrus (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I too support the block. He does not appear to do anything other than disrupt. -- JamesTeterenko 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I obviously agree with it. What a loon. --Cyde↔Weys 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the block in accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I support it as well. FeloniousMonk 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you even wait this long? We have more important things to do than debate with trolls. *mboverload gives everyone a carbon-fiber stick so they can swing it easier* --mboverload@ 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Qho (talk · contribs) posting personal information

A strange request was left on the Medcab talk page concerning User:Qho and User:89.32.1.82. It appears Qho posted the personal information of IP on his/her userpage (diff). I'm utterly baffled by what's going on here, but the IP address was blocked by User:Yamla for editing other peoples' comments, meanwhile Qho has left some threatening messages on the IP's talk page. If anything, the userpage edit should probably be removed from the history, but Qho needs to cool down at the moment. I brought the issue here to see what should be done. Cowman109^Talk 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tags by SlimVirgin

Contrary to policy User:SlimVirgin has removed an {{autobiography}} tag [154] from Gary Weiss despite the fact that Weiss has been editing that article using various sockpuppets. She has also removed a sockpuppet alert from the talk page[155]. Neither tag named the useraccount, they simply notified readers of the situation. 130.15.164.126 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)