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

User:PalestineRemembered

As his name indicates, User:PalestineRemembered has joined Wikipedia for the purpose of advocating for a specific political position. This often becomes problematic in terms of the undue weight provisions of WP:NPOV, and in particular because of the WP:BLP, as he often writes about Israeli leaders (e.g. Benjamin Netanyahu) or those he views as Zionists (e.g. Alan Dershowitz) solely for the purpose of vilifying them. While this would be problematic enough, he seems completely unable to understand the concept of original research, no matter how many times the concept is explained; some examples include [1], [2], and [3] He seems to have no compunction about replacing cited information from reliable sources with his own speculation and arguments, using dubious sources at best. In addition, his Talk: page comments are intemperate at best, and often highly uncivil; see, for example, [4], or the entire Talk:Flag of Israel page starting at Talk:Flag_of_Israel#Separation_of_Church_and_State. I am currently unaware of a single edit of his that has actually managed to stick in an article, though one or two might have slipped through, and most of his Talk: page comments consist of political rants. At this point I'm thinking a significant block of some sort would be in order, if only to give him time to read and understand WP:NOR and WP:BLP, though I despair that it will help. Any other suggestions? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking over his contributions, I'm hard pressed to find more than a couple that aren't dubious. He does appear to impervious to reason and policy, so an attention-getting block seems justified to me. FeloniousMonk 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty justifiable to me. Hopefully now PR can understand how Wikipedia policy works, and he/she will be able to follow them. Khoikhoi 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a one month time out. I was leaning toward 2-3 weeks, but the WP:CIVIL violations pushed him over the top. FeloniousMonk 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I also support this. I've seen some bizarre edits that are pure OR, yet he doesn't seem to get it no matter how often it's explained. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's weird: I've seen some completely POV and OR comments from PR, but then I've seen some that are ridiculously the opposite and pro israel. I do agree, however, with Felonious Monk and SV that the majority of the edits are bizarre. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familliar with PR, but on a related note, am considering changing my username to Israel intro chnages remembered, alebit briefly. El_C 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few more problematic editors haunting Middle-East-related pages at the moment, such as User:Amoruso and User:Shamir1. PalestineRemembered has some good contributions, unlike them, so I would suggest dealing with the irremediable first and then coming back to the cases of doubt. Though I should add that most of my experience of them have been in the opposite situation to that cited here, i.e. Amoruso et al making ludicrously POV changes and PR disputing them. Palmiro | Talk 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you offer examples of PR's good contributions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When a quick action was taken against PalestineRemembered, the slowness of action against Amoruso and Shamir who have same (or worse) behaviour is highly questionable. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to unblock the IP address 203.144.160.248

Hi Guys

User 203.144.160.248 has recently been blocked. The user has only recently visited wiki site and learned that the user's name - "Pongsak Hoontrakul" appeared on the list of Economists. It The name was in red and was blocked as well. Please see the details below:

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Winhunter for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Continuation of Centrx's block; AB Your IP address is 203.144.160.248. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siripen (talk • contribs) .

Vandalism on Albert Einstein

Perhaps one of you who thinks that Albert Einstein does not deserve permanent semi-protection would be so good as to repair this vandalism which has been there un-reverted for 3½ hours. Yes, I know I could revert it myself, and I used to—until I gave up on the futile effort of trying to guard this article without semi-protection. --teb728 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected this morning. In future, you can get a faster response posting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, Kla'quot 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I went to WP:RPP twice before and got protection for short periods, but that protection was quickly removed by admins who don't believe in protection. The last time it was unprotected, I came here to protest and was informed that Wikipedia relies on editors' reverting vandalism not on protection. Well, I figure that admins who won't protect articles should do the reverting. And as I pointed out in my original post, you can't always depend on editors to do the job when they are faced with the volume of vandalism this article sees without protection. --teb728 04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point now. BTW for everyone else reading this: I requested semi-protection yesterday morning before I saw TEB728's comment here on AN/I. Both of us had seen the same flare-up of vandalism on Albert Einstein. Admins, what does it take to get indefinite semi-protection on an article? Kla'quot 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Too harsh a punishment

Because I have previously edited this page (as has Pschemp) I ask that the following blocks be reviewed:

• 22:38, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "207.70.152.4 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism) [5]

This comes a full 7 hours after the last edit. After the anonymous user received a warning on their talk page, they have not continued the disruptive behavior. So what purpose does the block serve other than to be punitive, as the editor has brought there actions inline with our traditions.

Also this block fails to assume good faith:

• 22:37, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "68.100.239.10 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) [6]

The editor has two edits:

• 22:31, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment - deleted offensive picture) [7]
• 05:17, 6 September 2006 (hist) (diff) The Greatest American Hero

The only justification for such a long block after 1 edit is if that IP is a sockpuppet of an existing user. But we have no proof of that and as I tried to explain on the Pschemp's talk page, this kind of vandalism is not unexpected given that the picture is very disrespectful to many people's belief systems. What we need to do is educate and welcome - not smack them for trying to make a contribution they feel is their duty. The first user shows, once educated, these users will stop being disruptive. --Trödel 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding:

• 23:14, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "71.195.224.15 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism)

Again two edits only:

• 22:55, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment)
• 04:33, 26 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Parasympathetic nervous system (→Relationship to sympathetic nervous system)

Again overly harsh and failure to assume good faith. --Trödel 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My experiance with this adminstrator is limited to receiving a week long block for "trolling" after my uncontroversial participation in discussion on this page. The gory details are here. - 152.91.9.144 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I will admit that this seems to be wrong. A user should not be blocked quite so immediately, and blocking someone for mentioning this problem is wholly and completely out of line. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with the blocking admin before bringing this here? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes here --Trödel 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Did any of you notice that I changed the block to 48 hours? Obviously not. Get your facts straight before you complain. Additionally, the edit pattern shows this is a user who is hopping from IP to IP and making the same edit repeatedly in a short amount of time. It isn't a new innocent IP every time, its the same guy who was already reverted 3 times. The only way to deal with people using proxies is to block immediately. However, the entire issue has been resolved since the page is now semi-protected so the IP vandals can talk about their feelings on the talk page first. (which Trodel agreed was a good solution) We had a discussion and came to conclusions. Trodel's posting here is superfluous. pschemp | talk 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is superfllous then there was no reason to keep the block in place, yet you did. --Trödel 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Trodel, the posting here was superfluous because we were happily discussing it on my talk page. That's what I was referring to. The block was not. pschemp | talk 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy if pschemp could acknowledge that there might be any problem with her blocking strategy. Looking back over the last month or so, the vast majority of her blocks are no-nonsense username and vandalism-only accounts. However her use of "trolling" as a block reason appears somewhat hit-or-miss. Leaving aside her blocking me, a quick glance back shows

• 04:34, 25 November 2006 Pschemp blocked "NYScholar (talk • contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (trolling and disruption on user talk pages.) [8]

where a serious contributor was blocked for a straightforward (if strident) dialog on a user talk page. Again, without warning or clear justification. The weakness of the {{unblock}} procedure is also made clear by this exchange, by the way. If these more controversial blocks could be brought here for review and Pschemp was a bit more open to dialog regarding the blocks, there would be no problem here. Incivility in the manner of "Get your facts straight" does nothing to further the collegial environment we would all like to edit in.
152.91.9.144 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's your issue. I think if you remember correctly another administrator reviewed that block and found it appropriate. As did the person whose page you were disrupting. If you'd like to complain about that block, go start another section. Continuing to whine here about an action already deemed appropriate by four admins is childish. (and "does nothing to further the collegial environment we would all like to edit in.") pschemp | talk 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Notice I said start a "new" section on your personal issue, not "move this section down". pschemp | talk 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The (first) response is not only rude in "continuing to whine" but doesn't *ahem* get it's facts straight. (It conflates several different incidents.) Blocks, like all applications of adminstrator privledge (and in fact all Wikipedia edits) are subject to review and discussion. The ability to take part in discussions about one's actions in a civil and rational manner is in fact a pre-requisite to participation here. I'd ask if the level of venom could be turned down just a tad. I'm also asking (as Trödel is) for some adminstrator input into pschemp's blocking, so a "another section" is not called for. - 152.91.9.144 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not move this section out of time order again. pschemp | talk 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This diff says all I have to say. Another uninvolved admin felt the block was justified. The person's whose page it was on did not disagree either. If you want to complain, you'd better complain about all three of us. And yes, you are whining. And no its not uncivil to point out what you are doing. pschemp | talk 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall desist from pointing out your incivility, and instead leave it to other reasonable people to determine it. With regards to your block of NYScholar (talk • contribs), here is the edit that you blocked him without warning for, and that the reviewing admin called "flaming." There is not a rude word in it. I might also add that the "few hours to calm down" comments are due to what, the words "REQUEST FOR UNBLOCK" in capital letters? This block was out of line, the review was half-arsed, and your hostility is deeply unbecoming. If you are unable to handle civil, reasonable requests for examination of your blocks, don't make them. When we're finished with talking about your NYScholar "trolling" block we can look at your one-week block of this IP. - 152.91.9.144 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not reformat my comments. Also, the week blocked was immediately reduced to 48 hours after a discussion with Trodel. I'm sorry you don't like the action with NYScholar but 4 admins agreed with it. I have nothing more to say to you. pschemp | talk 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation and abuse question on 6.5 Grendel

Ok, first the background. In the past week there have been dozens of edits to Assault rifle by anon IPs making unreferenced claims that say the 6.5 Grendel cartridge is the best thing since sliced bread, etc. It was definitely not NPOV, had no sources etc. It was almost to the point of being an advertisement saying "Alexander Arms bullets are better than any other bullet out there". Anyway, I noticed a similar IP had posted on the 6.5 Grendel page. Some of the text there looked fishy, so I did a brief Google search and found the ballistics testing paragraphs were ripped straight off another page. It's possible the entire page is a rip as well, but only slightly paraphrased. A lot of it looks similar.

Anyway, I removed, tagged copyvio, posted on the copyright violations page etc. Great, grand. The talk page has suddenly exploded in its absence with anons and new contributers suddenly claiming I work for Remington (I don't, I'm a student), that I have a history of malicious edits (I've never received a warning), etc. Also no less than 4 people and probably more now have now claimed to be the copyright owner and release their work: but some of them are releasing it into public domain (which I don't think is GFDL compatible) and some only to specific users.

Examples:

*"The malicious charge that SwatJester has made that images and comments regarding terminal ballistics gel testing cross-posted at TheHighRoad by John Hanka, aka Grendelizer at 65Grendel.com, are the property of that site when John is not only the moderator on the 65Grendel.com site, but is in fact paying for its existence, are absurd. " (note: this refers to my tagging as copyvio.)

• "Beyond this, SwatJester has a history of destroying the work of well-intentioned contributors on many sites by constantly reverting them to versions he finds more palatable. Such behavior, if allowed to continue by the Wiki staff, will destroy the desire and ability of knowledgeable and well-intentioned individuals to contribute to the Wiki effort."

• "Is it possible that someone here at Wikipedia is on the payroll or has vested stock interest in Remington?" (not so subtly hinting at me).

The talk page had not received any notice in almost 30 days. Suddenly all these posts, with competing and overlapping incompatible copyright releases, most from anon IPs and none of which can be confirmed yet....and then this abuse spewed at me: sounds like someone is organizing off-wiki to orchestrate something on wiki.

And to be honest: I'm F*ing sick of it. I like to think I do a good job on wikipedia. I've been editing here almost a year, something around 8000 good edits on over 4000 pages. It's one thing for a random IP to flame me, or vandalize my user page, that's happened before and it's entertaining. But this is ridiculous.

Will another couple of eyes take a look at this and maybe hearing from an admin that I was justified in removing the copyrighted material will get it through their thick skulls? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I should mention one of those editors, User:Solidpoint who was responsible for some of those claims including an edit summary accusing me of vandalism for removing the copyrighted material had this to say on a similar article: emphasis my own.

*"Thinly veiled listing of Pinnacle's bitch list RE: DOD testing

This Wiki page is a disgrace. There is nothing objective or unbiased about anything written here and I say this as a huge DragonSkin fan. If Wiki cannot police itself better than this it is not a credible source of information about anything. This page is not about DragonSkin at all. It is about the unfair way Pinnacle Armor's product was tested and the author is just grinding an axe. It is pathetic beyond description to find this sort of thing in what purports to be an Encyclopedia. I think if Pinnacle were aware of this page THEY would ask for its destruction. No good can come from airing a list of bitches from one side only. This page has zero credibility and will likely injure Pinnacle.

Solidpoint'

I've asked for an apology on his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone want to take a look at this? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did... it's absolutely sickening. If they don't get real permissions, this article should be deleted, ASAP. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in any way defending either what other editors may have said to Swatjester, or any copyright violations, but there are a number of external links in the article to sources that very clearly meet WP:RS. I have edited the external links section to (hopefully) make this clearly. I also believe the article's subject meets wikipedia's requirements for notability, for what that's worth. John Broughton | Talk 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I popped across to the forum they are all linking to - I take it SOLIDPOINT is the same Solidpoint, who makes the disgusting comment of

I will say this. When that asshole SwatJester crawls out of his mom's basement he better not cross my path or he'll be posting from the ER ward for awhile. That graphic represents more than 100 hours of work just on my end and a lot more from Stan and Mike and others. For destroying that kind of effort I'm perfectly happy to rearrange his dental work and significant parts of his skeleton. --Charlesknight 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute. Indef block Solidpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for threat of bodily harm to an editor in an external forum, anyone? Georgewilliamherbert 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, User:Solidpoint going offwiki to make personal attacks should be treated harshly.--Isotope23 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a provisional 48 hour block on User:Solidpoint. I have asked him to make a full and meaningful retraction of his threat and an unconditional apology to User:Swatjester. If these are not forthcoming during the duration of the block I will extend it to indef. Threats of violence in real life will absolutely not be tolerated. Gwernol 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Gwernol's position. Threats of violence made on or off-wiki are completely unacceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this block. We cannot regulate what fellow editors do on other websites, but in keeping with the findings of several sections of my own arbitration case (namely, principles 1, 2 and 4), Wikipedia does not tolerate harassment, works to effectively eliminate harassment be it through appropriate administrator actions as necessary, and we unite together in our efforts to defeat harassment making sure no one need be isolated by such incidents (in a nutshell). If no evidence of sincere apology is forthcoming...extend block to indef.--MONGO 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I find it a bit hypocritical that people are unwilling to say that a user with the same apparent screen name is the same person when it comes to a copyright release, but are quite content to make that leap when blocking someone for purposeful attacks. Certainly, Solidpoint has been incivil, and should probably apologize to keep things functioning smoothly. But I have found, through my own experience, that sometimes forcing an apology does more harm than good. My impression is that Solidpoint isn't very familiar with the way we do things here, and rather than focusing on retribution, we should try and turn someone who clearly has knowledge and interest in a particular field into a valuable Wikipedian. Permanent banning isn't going to do that. Especially when there's such a clear insider/outsider dynamic as there is here, such measures are just more likely to cause anger. --Eyrian 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Solidpoint has given an apology here. My inclination is to unblock and keep an eye on the situation. Gwernol 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is whether it has been established that these identitys are the same. Has the user admitted they were? has some independent verification been carried out? Are there consanguinuities in the manner of speaking or references to information that at least give some indication of sameness? If that's the case I am tripping over myself to endorse. If not, some qualms remain. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that after the apology was posted, the original comment was removed from the above mentioned forum? --Charlesknight 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given an apology, an unblock and monitor may be appropriate. Stipulating that identity has now been established? ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The apology itself and the removal of the forum post demonstrate that the Wikipedia user and the forum poster are the same person, at least to my satisfaction. I think there is reason to assume good faith, just, here and remove the block. Any further repetition of these threats or similar behavior should be ttreated swiftly, IMHO. Gwernol 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow I mised all of this? Yeesh. I think this very much exemplifies the dangers inherent in offwiki groups banding together to push a POV onto their specific articles. I briefly looked through their claims on their forum about me and found so many things, for instance that I had made a diff that I didn't make, that I have never created an article of my own (RSTA (U.S. Army), Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN that I recreated from the face of CSD death,) etc. This is a case of the things that can happen when people who do not know how wikipedia works attempt to band together and push something through through the strength of their numbers. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas on how to fix that. I will say that while I appreciate the apology, "Perhaps now he will find the references he so craves" makes it ring rather hollow. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that I found that passage of concern. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the copyright situation has finally worked itself out, however, I'd appreciate it if a few eyes were kept on the situation regarding the personal attacks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re reinstating edits made by banned users

If a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user makes an edit I consider valid, am I or am I not permitted to reinstate it after it has been reverted under the unproven pretext that it is a banned user editing? User:Khoikhoi threatened to block me for doing so despite the fact that the blocking policy does not provide for that...--Euthymios 16:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have no idea if User:Khoikhoi is on solid ground with regards to blocking you (I'm not an admin), but it appears the version you are reverting to does not have broad consensus per the compromise agreement in Archive 8 Section 2 of the Talk:Transnistria page. There is a lengthy discussion there where a consensus was reached so you probably should not be reverting this anyway, regardless of where the original edit came from.--Isotope23 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is MY OPINION. You are permitted to reintroduce edits from a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. However, you should not do so using 'revert', you should introduce it as new text. Note that you will be taking full responsibility for the content, so any NPOV or uncited claims, for example, will be your responsibility to fix prior to inserting. The content will be considered to be contributed by you and you may be warned or blocked if it is inappropriate or if it is introduced in opposition to established consensus. It is important to note that you may not reinstate text that a banned user contributed if the banned user has asked you to do so. This would be a violation of WP:SOCK. For the record, any time I revert a banned user's contributions, I welcome someone else to reinstate the changes provided they accept full responsibility for them. Note that nothing I've said here is meant to replace WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, this is just my reading of the policy and my opinion on how things should work. --Yamla 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with your opinion. It is permissible if someone else puts the information in and is credited with it. But just reverting is not. pschemp | talk 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yamla's opinion has some good precedents. David Gerard once explained on WikiEN-L that he had done the exact same thing, & the general response there was one of approval. I don't know if Yamla is aware of this prior case, but if he isn't then that would only confirm that it is a reasonable solution. -- llywrch 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's essentially what Euthymios did - he reverted to Bonaparte's version. Khoikhoi 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, this leaves me puzzled. What is the difference between "putting information back in" and "reverting"? How do you tell the one from the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is who is credited in the edit history. pschemp | talk 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no real difference, of course. But a reversion using the admin roll-back tool is pushing for a wheel war. Reintroducing the change and using an edit summary like "rvv" or the like would similarly be what I mean by a revert. The trick is that an editor must treat it as original content that they are introducing and the edit summary would reflect that. For example, when reintroducing a spelling change, the edit summary should probably read along the lines of "(m) spelling - 'happyness' to 'happiness'". The key point is that the change is treated as new rather than as a roll back to a version introduced by the banned user. --Yamla 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The other key point is that from a GFDL standpoint, it does matter who made it. pschemp | talk 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yamla's advice is ood sense. I'd also make a comment on Talk to confirm that this is what has been done. As long as the edit is good (which seems not to be in dispute) there should be no problem, and if there is I'm sure it can be fixed by rational discussion well before the publication deadline. There being none. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That edit was 1) not vandalism, 2) accurate and NPOV, and 3) there is no proof that it was made by Bonaparte or any banned user. If a banned user corrects a typo and he is reverted in mass rollback, am I not allowed to revert back? Frankly, I see no difference. I would agree if it were a talkpage post or vandalism, however we're talking about an article edit which would be totally legitimate had it been made by a regular user (which there is no proof that that anon was not). Finally, is this blockable and if so how? Don't just say "disruption" - explain how it is "disruption". Many admins block by citing "disruption" but forget that the blocking policy specifies that such blocks are nearly always controversial.--Euthymios 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't reverting a typo though, this is reverting to a version of the articlecreated by an Anon (with a suspiciously good understanding of Wikipedia policy) that is against the Wikipedia:Consensus on the talk page. I would say this would not be a legitimate edit no matter who made it.--Isotope23 17:34, 28 November 2006 (
• In general, when re-adding content of a banned user care must be taken to follow copyright law. FloNight 20:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the emphasis on copyright law in this context? Surely, edits by even a banned user are GFDL licensed? After all, we may not catch them all. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Block User:125.212.74.174

For repeated vandalism of List of Marvel Comics films. --Jamdav86 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is just a case of an anon not understanding WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT a crystalball rather than outright malicious vandalism. I've tried explaining on the talk page for the IP.--Isotope23 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look severe enough to warrant a block, a note about making sure they cite sources is enough. Shadow1 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would he be blocked if he continued to do it after your notice? --Jamdav86 20:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chatting uncontrolled

Looks like we've got a group of teenage girls using their talk pages as a chat site, including at least Baby-girl015 (talk · contribs), Beccaboo 06 (talk · contribs), Natigurl 06 (talk · contribs), Cutie Pie06 (talk · contribs). They have been leaving invitations to chat on various User Pages, User Talk pages, and Article Talk pages, frequently blanking the previous content in the process. I've had no luck in trying to communicate with any of them, except to get responses asking if I want to chat. Fan-1967 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, do you want to chat? Well, an indefinite block of a user with no useful contributions is unlikely to be controversial. Not that I'm suggesting this as a first response, but if they're unresponsive... Friday (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like trolls than teenage girls to me.--Crossmr 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolls, almost certainly. I wonder if this isn't just a bunch of sockpuppets run by a schizophrenic puppetmaster? Not sure how to check. Doc Tropics 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am tracking their moves to see if administrator intervention needs to be enforced. I would suggest reporting them to WP:AIV if they get out of control, or contact Jimbo and have them ALL banned at once. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Beccaboo 06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to have created all the following:

1. Babyphat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Big daddy thick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Sexy 06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Big gay bubba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. ! JAY ! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Pretty Ricky1820 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Sexy Virgo Baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Sexy Jamacian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. BabyBlueStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Sexy Chocolate 09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Sexy Scorpio10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be more. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just reporting another quadruple on village pump / policy:

1. Make mi fall 4 u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
2. Wfg100 (talk · contribs),
3. Twdtriplethreat (talk · contribs),
4. Ghsovertime22 (talk · contribs)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This type of activity is a blatant abuse of project pages; it practically borders on stealing bandwidth. I would strongly suggest that steps be taken to shut them down immediately. Doc Tropics 19:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is one case where I think a permant block is warrented on the first offense. Users who have made no actual article space edits and merely are engaging in social networking don't need to continue editing here.--Isotope23 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Meh. They're just kids. Find the IP, notify the school. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the latest response [9]. Not promising. Fan-1967 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• They are just kids... which means they will keep this up unless they are blocked. Heck, at that age I would have probably done the same thing. JzG is right though, Finding the IP and notifying the school is probably the best bet as indef blocks will just mean they create new users and continue it... at least that is what I would have done at that age.--Isotope23 15:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow...I mean, look at girls socializing on MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal and whatnot. I WAS going to put a final warning message, but it looks like you've K.O.'ed them before I did. I hope they've learned their lesson...--D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 15:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We had this problem a while back with some users connected to Cute 1 4 u (no surprise that the names are all similar and sound like they belong to African-American teenage girls). If anything, we should delete their userspaces other than the user talk that they have been warned at, and blocked for not contributing to the encyclopedia at all.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just reverted Cutie Pie06's malarkey back to Fan-1967's edit ("rv chat"). Just this week I saw that someone produced vandalism to Apex, North Carolina and sounded like someone that was black, just to give you the heads-up. I had thought that one of my old friends from elementary school (1994-95; my last years in Cary), Shayna Whelan, was trying to be funny by introducing vandalism to the page which got the Wake County IP blocked by Alphachimp. I was wrong. It's best to find the IP that's doing this, and I hope it's not female students from Wake County trying to get revenge on us at the behest of Shayna Whelan (as to what I think is going on). --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just warned Beccaboo 06 about also vandalizing a user's page as well. I have warned both girls that the joking can be considered vandalism. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference desk problem and block

As some may remember, I have been working recently on the problem of the Wikipedia:Reference desk, which as for some time been misused by a few users as a place for general discussion rather than its intended purpose. My first approach was to discuss the use of the reference desk, and appropriate ways of regulating it; these discussions (with some users) were extensive, and resulted in me writing out a personal plan for removing highly inappropriate comments and discussion from the reference desk: User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals. Applying this procedure worked fine until last night, when I removed an entirely off-topic joke discussion. I informed DirkvdM (talk • contribs • count) that I had done this, and he took exception. I spent a long period of time explaning why my actions follow from the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the purpose of the reference desk (see User talk:DirkvdM#Reference desk removal), but he repeatedly reverted my edits even after I made it clear that (in my best judgement) his reversions were disruptive. I therefore warned him that he would be blocked if he continued to disrupt the ref desk. He subsequently restored the comments, so I blocked him for 12 hours to prevent further disruption.

Thus I have failed in my original plan to improve the reference desk through discussion; several other admins have tried before me, and run out of patience rather faster than I did. In my best judgement, drawing a line in the sand and saying "some comments can be, and will be, removed to keep the page on topic" was the only remaining approach. When DirkvdM became stubborn on this point, I couldn't see a better option than to block for disruption. However, I have blocked a generally good contributor for restoring that he believes was legitimate content, and my actions should be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments. Thanks, SCZenz 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (SCZenz (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves))

I think the idea of removing comments by another editor is generally a bad thing, but in the case of the reference desk I would support your actions as it is very easy to get sidetracked with irrelevant things. In order to keep the place in order and useful, the desk must be kept on the point. Each question and topic on the desk should stay within its boundaries else people will not think the desk is actually any use.

In this case, removing DirkvdM's irrelevant and off-topic comment was appropriate and his trying to force it back on, regardless of the purpose of the page was disruptive. It is a case of using your common sense to prevent the page losing focus. -Localzuk^(talk) 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I also concur with the removal and the block. SCZenz made an extraordinary effort to communicate with the user and explain exactly why it wasn't appropriate for the reference desk. As the first place many new Wikipedians go, it is important for it to maintain focus. Dirk claims that we are taking the fun out of Wikipedia, but there is no way irrelevent penis jokes on the reference desk make the encyclopedia better and he does not have an inalienble right to post them as his comments seem to indicate. Thank you SCZenz for tackling this tough area with patience and wisdom. pschemp | talk 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LCs retorts

Surprise surprise! 8-( But Dirk saw it as relevant as he (and I) found ithe Q unclear.--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, how are the RDs supposed to make WP better? Anyone know?--Light current 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Things that should be removed would include death threats and racial slurs. Bad jokes, while they perhaps shouldn't be made in the first place, certainly do not rise to the level of something to be removed, and blocking a user over such an issue is absurd. StuRat 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree! 8-)--Light current 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZ has written, and is operating by, his own guidelines on which he has failed to obtain consensus for acceptance. He is acting autocratically and is guilty of harrassment. SCZ makes up the rules as he goes along. Is that how WP works?--Light current 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He is using common sense and a interpretation of our existing policies in order to keep an important area of the encyclopedia on task and focussed. Also, the user was blocked for edit warring with an admin - ok, this block should have been done by a seperate admin and the issue discussed in more detail elsewhere first, but the block did what it was supposed to do - stopped the edit war.

Remember, wikipedia is not a discussion forum - jokes do not come within the purpose of the site. The reference desk is one of the first points of contact for many users of this site and as such should be kept focussed - if it is not, then the site may lose some credibility due to what is in essence silly banter.

I think this is an issue that needs further discussion, maybe on the talk page of SCZenz's proposed guideline page?-Localzuk^(talk) 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on! Thats not a proposed Guideline! Its not been presented as such. Its been presenteted as SCZs Law!. I proposed guidelines weeks ago! SCZ said my guidelines were uneccessary and common sense would do!. So why has he suddenly changed his mind?--Light current 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened is that I wrote out my common-sense conclusions for the benefit of people who wanted to know what I was doing and why. My page is nothing but an explanation of how existing Wikipedia policy (plus a bit of common sense) already covers appropriate use of the reference desk, and what to do about inappropriate use. -- SCZenz 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I ve said so many times (but you were obviously not listening) Your common sense is NOT necessarily the same as other peoples. Get it yet? So you need to get consensus to ensure that a common sense of common sense is achielved!. Understand it yet?--Light current 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind WP:CIVIL, theres no reason to shout. semper fi — Moe 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold text is emphasis. THIS is shouting 8-)--Light current 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Samir_(The_Scope)

Guys, it's okay to have fun on the reference desk, as it's okay (and recommended!) to have fun elsewhere on Wikipedia, but please keep the conversations close to the topic at hand. A lot of users turn to the reference desk for answers to legitimate questions; it undermines the role of the desk somewhat if they end up with an irrelevant commentary in an attempt to be funny. I wholeheartedly support the intent of SCZenz's actions -- Samir धर्म 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do feel bad that DirkvdM was blocked, though. He helped me immensely on the reference desk a couple of months ago, and I've noticed that he's given some exceptional RD answers to other questions -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad about it too. -- SCZenz 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the next time this comes up I might be tempted to file an arbitration request to settle this damn issue once and for all. Do you imagine a real reference library would staff its front desk with children (or child-minded adults) making potty jokes? Thatcher131 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison. If Wikipedia was paying us, we might be willing to put up with a humorless and autocratic environment, but they are not. StuRat 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pay peanuts... Actually I think the RDs get a damn good deal from the RD editors. THe only payment we get is a few jokes (not many of them now)--Light current 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem. What we see as a plea for simple decency you see as humorless and autocratic. Do you see a way to address this without handing it off to arbcom? Thatcher131 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the solution is to bring such issues up at the Ref Desk talk page, discuss them there, then come up with a consensus for a solution. This is the method which was working, with a few bumps here and there. But, since SCZenz didn't like how we were handling things, they chose to decide, without consensus, both what is appropriate and when an inappropriate comment rises to the level of requiring removal. I don't consider having any one person deciding such things to be appropriate, whether they are an Admin or not. StuRat 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What do you mean by simple decency? Whose standards would you be using? Yours, mine or someone eleses?--Light current 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole consensus discussion is a red herring. I'm not in favour of removing content from the RD, but IMO it's come to this because people have been so stubborn about defending indefensible contributions. IT'S A WIKI. Every single page belongs to the WikiMedia Foundation, and we release every single character we type to the GFDL. This means articles, talk pages, userpages, and the RD. Users generally have dominion over our userpages out of courtesy, not because we own them. But anyone can edit them. The editing or removal of on-topic talk page contributions is frowned upon because it defeats the purpose of the article talk page, which is to achieve consensus on the content of the article. The RD is not a talk page. Our every contribution is not sacrosanct. We are working towards solutions to individual problems posed as questions by individual posters, and as such, off-topic contributions are subject to removal. They haven't been up to now, but now they are. It doesn't need a change in policy, and it doesn't need consensus. It's as simple as that. IT'S A WIKI. Anchoress 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Im very sorry to have to say this, and its not an attack, but I find Anchoresss comment totally neutral and unhelpful in every way! It does not advance the discussion 8-( Really sorry! No offence! 8-( --Light current 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is a talk page. Let's look at some of the differences and decide where the Ref Desk falls:

ARTICLE RULES
===================================================
Don't sign posts.
Make any changes you think improves the article.
Rigid format rules (ie, for "References" section).
Length is limited by deleting redundant info.

TALK PAGE
==================================================
Sign all posts.
Only add to the talk page, except for archiving 
 and removing abusive language.
Lax format rules.
Length is limited by archiving.

StuRat 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with arbitration for this; I think this can be handled at the admin level, which is what I've been trying to do. Unless other admins have concerns about my approach, I'm perfectly happy willing to continue removing inappropriate comments and (if necessary, and after due warning) blocking those who restore them. I don't think what I'm doing needs to be endorsed by ArbCom to be valid—but if other admins think having a statement from authority is preferable to my current approach, then I'll go along with that. -- SCZenz 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely support what you are doing, without arbcom endorsement. I might suggest an intermediate step of banning a problem user from the reference desk for a period of time, under threat of block, so they can edit elsewhere for a while. But if bans are the only way to get the point across that this is the community consensus (or at least admin consensus) then so be it. Thatcher131 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins deciding unilaterally to block people is not community consensus, and should only be used for severe abuse of the Ref Desk, not for telling a bad joke. StuRat 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The block was for the repeated and disruptive restoration of the irrelevant discussion, despite a clear warning. There was no consequence for making the joke except removal with a polite note—as indeed there should not be. -- SCZenz 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a direct consequence of removing the comment, as no block would have occurred if you hadn't started the revert war then escalated to a block when you were unable to convince the user of your POV. StuRat 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCzenz 's actions were not unilateral as so far they have been supported by every admin who has commented on the page. Obviously then, there are people who agree with him and he isn't acting in a vacuum. I don't think arbcom is needed here either. Nor does it have to be an admin who removes inappropriate comments. "You're taking the fun out of Wikipedia" is an immature argument for leaving irrelevant penis jokes on some of our most public pages. pschemp | talk 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unilateral in that it was decided before asking for the opinions of others. And, frankly, I bet Admins would support one another against the user community except for extremely blatant and obvious abuses. This isn't exactly surprising, as the question boils down to giving Admins more power and Users less power. As for anybody being able to remove a comment, that would allow the original user to restore the comment if they disagreed. However, when an admin removes your comment and you put it back, you get blocked, this is the issue. Your comment that SCZenz's actions are "supported by every admin who has commented on the page" also contains the hidden assumption that only the opinions of Admins matter, and all comments from the general user community (including regular Ref Desk contributors) can be ignored. StuRat 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his explanation page has been there a while and other people have looked at it and agreed with it. You didn't know that, but it was discussed before action was taken. Therefore the actions was not unilateral. pschemp | talk 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The proper place for the discussion was the Ref Desk talk page, where it was discussed, and I don't believe there was any consensus reached that SCZenz should start deleting any comments he didn't like. And, in any case, each individual deletion is still unilateral, unless that specific deletion has been agreed to based on a consensus. For example, we might well all agree that death threats should be removed, but an Admin removing a statement that "bin Laden may be killed soon" would still be unilateral, because we have not agreed that this was a violation of the "no death threats" policy. StuRat 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All opinions are important, but I think we especially value those from people who contribute to the Ref Desk regularly. After all, you guys are the ones actually doing the work of answering the questions. But don't you think some of the less-than-relevant commentary could be toned down a bit, StuRat? It's one of the things that personally turns me off the reference desk also. I see a lot of medical questions that I could answer, but they often devolve into joke-cracking threads that I feel somewhat silly adding to. -- Samir धर्म 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that irrelevant silliness should be limited. However, this is not the same as saying we should start censoring the contributions of others, and most definitely not the same as saying we should start blocking regular contributors. This type of overreaction is more of a problem than the irrelevant silliness ever was. StuRat 08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying is, if a user adds content to the reference desk that's bad for Wikipedia, I have no right to take any action? -- SCZenz 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not unless it's really horrendous, and it wasn't, in this case. Put it this way, which is better, to have that joke removed and Dirk banned, or to leave both alone ? StuRat 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering just this one incident, it would be better to leave the joke. However, your argument will apply every single time the reference desk is used inappropriately. In the big picture, it's better to draw a line somewhere and insist that the reference desk not be misused. Dirk's decision to disrupt the reference desk to make a point about me being a despot was his own... and the consequences were what I warned they would be. -- SCZenz 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"It takes two to tango". That is, it was your decision to remove the comment, and yours to block him for restoring the rather innocuous comment. These actions seemed to be more about your pride than improving Wikipedia. StuRat 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf61 comment

My I add a comment, as a non-admin but long standing Wikipedian and regular RD contributor ? SCZenz is acting on his honest belief that the RDs need to be regulated and cleaned up. He has put some thought into this and has written up the standards to which he thinks RD questions and answers should conform. He has started to enforce these standards by deleting responses, and sometimes whole threads. Unfortunately, he does not have time to patrol the RDs regularly, so his deletions have a sporadic and ad-hoc quality. His actions are also encouraging victimisation of certain RD contributors by others - see recent discussions on the RD talk page. If there is concensus that SCZenz is doing the right thing, then there should be no need for him to patrol the RDs on his own. Please help him set up a process to regulate the RDs properly by applying an agreed set of rules regularly, consistently and fairly. The current vigilante situation is very unsatisfactory. Gandalf61 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

Samir, note that if the deletion of inappropriate stuff becomes policy any medical questions would be removed, so any answer you gave would also be removed. Be carefull when judging something you haven't felt the full brunt of. For this reason who should decide ref desk policy should be determined by how active they are at the ref desk, not by whether they are an admin. DirkvdM 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the block is a minor issue (actually, I now notice the block has already ended). What's at stake here is the nature of the ref desk, and any discussions about that should take place at the talk page there. About SCZenz's behaviour, may an admin use his powers (in casu blocking me) in a discussion he is one of the original parties in? I thought that was not allowed. On my talk page I've split the issue in four subtopics: what should be allowed on the ref desk, whether that applies to me and LightCurrent, how should any misbehaviour (when that is defined) be dealt with and if SCZenz is allowed to decide that on his own (ignoring the fact that there is still a hefty discussion going on about this at the talk page).

Oh, and since that term was again used here, it was not a penis joke. It was an amusing misunderstanding followed by clarifying info. A joke is something you come up with and I didn't come up with it, it was something amusing that happened to me. But like I explained on my talk page, I wonder if SCZenz has a hidden agenda. He says he wants to remove off topic remarks. But he doesn't do that (consistently). In stead he seems to just remove stuff that doesnt' please him personally, in casu a subject that has to do with a reproductive organ. This is selective zero tolerance. Very dangerous. Rules should be applied systematically, not at someone's whim. And for that there should be rules in the first place. Let's first establish rules for the nature of the ref desk and how to deal with them. I'm rather tempted to start removing all off-topic remarks at the ref desk, to show how disruptive non-selective zero tolerance would be. But I won't be so childish (yet). :)

Btw, SCZenz, do you report all your deletions to all the people in the sub-thread? (And is that at all do-able?) If so, I'm surprised this is the first time you've deleted anything by me, considering I make loads of side-remarks and you claim to have been doing this for a long time already. (So you must have been doing it very selectively then.) DirkvdM 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and you don't always warn people that you removed their contributions. As would indeed be impossible, even with a bot. And that is rather a major issue here. DirkvdM 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding complaints that I'm selective... I'm one person doing my best. We're all volunteers here; articles with no references get improved when someone have time, hoax pages get deleted when people notice them, admins are promoted when bureaucrats get around to it. Doing the right thing is still the right thing, even if it can't be done consistently. I have been removing primarily the most egregious examples of off-topic remarks, not indeed in the hope of getting them all, but rather in the hope of illustrating by example what kinds of discussion is definitely outside the purpose of the reference desk. In the long term, I have no intention of being the official reference desk "censor." I'm trying to draw a line in the sand, in order to help bring things back under control. The reference desk is off course, and helping it come back is a matter of applying existing policies, not arguing about new ones. And the reason other people aren't joining me in doing this is, frankly, that I can handle it myself and they have other things to do.

Regarding my "hidden agenda"... Yes, the fact that it was a juvenile penis joke is an aggrivating factor in my view. Talk about all the sex organs you like if it answers a question, but if new users think they're going to randomly have crude jokes thrown at them when they ask something not related to sex, it will intimidate them and keep them from using the reference desk. That's not okay, and Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean I have to pretend it is. We don't censor content... but we're not talking about content here, now are we? We're talking about a pointless joke.

Ok, that's it for me commenting in this section, unless something else goes wrong. A number of other administrators have reviewed my actions (more than have commented, almost certainly) and I have yet to receive any word from them that I'm taking the wrong approach... so for now, I'll keep at it. You can make pretty speeches here some more if you want, or ask for more general and organized feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment... but as that page says, it's not a step to take lightly. -- SCZenz 17:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Zoes input

As an admin who frequently posts on the Reference Desk, I think the deletions and the block were completely out of line. SCZenz does not own the RD, and it is not his/her responsbility to police it. The Reference Desk is, indeed, a fun place, where there are a lot of jokes, but it is also a serious place where lots of questions get answered. Dirk's comment was hardly over the line, and, in fact, was probably perfectly reasonable. I strongly oppose SCZenz's actions, and would suggest taking it to the RD's Talk pages before repeating them. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This surprises me. However, without administrative consensus, I will not continue as I have been. I've tried to clarify my actions and the reasons for them on your talk page. -- SCZenz 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. SCZenz and I have had a discussion on our Talk pages, and we are looking for further consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, that you would be selective was a bit too specific, but the point I was making is that unless this is done consistently there is the risk of unfair selectiveness. To avoid this, it would have to be done by a larger group of people. And to avoid people getting too upset about it, it would have to be done by consensus and we're a long way from that. So far you haven't done too much deleting (you're nowhere near deleting all the of-topic remarks), and you've already got LightCurrent, StuRat and me, three of the most active people on the ref desk, on your neck. Step it up and the ref desk will become one big edit war zone. Don't step it up and you're being selective. The deletion at hand here was one that was much less off-topic than a whole lot of other stuff, so why did you delete this specific one? If you keep this up I will be tempted to start a revolt by applying your rules (your rules!) consistently.

You talk about getting the ref desk back on course, but we've both started working on it just over a year ago, and it was the same then as it is now, which is part of the reason I liked it so much.

And for the last time, it wasn't a juvenile penis joke. It wasn't a joke. And the other half was informative. But you have now confessed that that was the (extra) reason for deleting it. And that is what I mean by 'selective'.

As for the opinion of admins, like I said, it's the opinion of people active at the ref desk that counts, irrespective of whether they're admins. People need to know what they are talking about. DirkvdM 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The only people here who know about the ref desk are LightCurrent, StuRat, Anchoress, me, and to a lesser extent Gandalf 61, Zoe and you. And between the seven of us, there is not quite a consensus. Actually, most agree with me. DirkvdM 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that people who don't edit the ref desk aren't fit to comment? You are bascially saying Samir and others don't know what they are talking about. If you are going to wield such accusations you may want to do so in the open. Personally I agree totally with SCZenz and just because you Stu and LightCurrent think irrelevent penis jokes are an appropriate thing does not make you correct. pschemp | talk 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been paying attention. We all agree that certain Ref Desk content may be inappropriate. What we disagree with is that an individual Admin has the right to decide unilaterally which content that is, remove it, and block any user who happens to disagree. And yes, we do feel that people who actually contribute to a project should have more say on the rules for how that project is managed than those who never, or only rarely, contribute. This is because it's very easy to come up with strict rules for others, so long as those rules never apply to you. And, if you never contribute to the Ref Desk, then those rules don't apply to you. StuRat 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like to say, in the spirit of standing up and being counted, that I don't have any problems with penis jokes (relevant or otherwise) on the RDs either. And also to point out the SCZenz's proposed criteria for deletion are far wider than just jokes - his criteria for deletion include "comments that are off-topic, opinion, or argumentative". Gandalf61 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't turn into that sort of pissing contest. I regularly work the reference desk, and I happen to agree with the practice of trimming out the really off-topic potty humour. You're welcome to be funny (within reason) if you're also being helpful. Otherwise, do try to remember that the Ref Desk is one place where a lot of new people may get their first exposure to Wikipedia, and that filling it with in-jokes and off-colour, off-topic humour is not exactly putting our best foot (or best face) forward.

On a related note, I think it's a really bad idea to edit war just to ensure that a stupid joke stays on the page. How, and who, does that help? What's the point of making that effort, exactly? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If nobody does anything to stop this sort of unilateral action by individual Admins, then they will continue with this obnoxious behavior. StuRat 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if I say I agree with the action? It's no longer 'unilateral' – and how I hate to see that word dragged out every time someone makes a decision – now. Where does the edit warring over Dirk's foreskin (in answer to a fashion question, for goodness' sake!) fit in on your scale of 'obnoxious' behaviour? How does having that comment on the page make the Reference Desk more useful to anyone? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still unilateral in that he didn't ask anyone BEFORE deleting the comment and blocking the user. The most obnoxious part is the block, over what was a very minor issue, if even an issue at all. StuRat 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He did ask someone BEFORE he deleted it. You just didn't know about it. So no, it wasn't unilateral. pschemp | talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Really ? Who did he ask about the specific item before he deleted it ? Can you provide a link ? StuRat 06:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every conversation about this has taken place on Wikipedia Stu. The is no link. 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is no proof that any such conversation ever existed, is there ? Please sign your posts. StuRat 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I take strong exception to the suggestion that only those with substantial RD experience can comment on its purpose and direction. But to assuage that criticism, I'll weigh in. I have previously been a substantial contributor at the Science RD, not so much anymore. Besides all the in-jokes about bay-gulls and such, I have found myself turned off by the rather chauvinist tone, whose most extreme form was seen in the thread (previously discussed here) about how a man could force his girlfriend into a sex act she was not comfortable with. I would estimate that at least a third of the "medical" questions there concern male genitals. Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD. I do propose that all RD contributors consider that people from a wide variety of backgrounds see it, and that they address topics with appropriate maturity. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's say this applied to you. We will say a new position is created, called Admin_Judge. They don't do anything but criticize the actions of Admins, delete and undo what Admins do, and threaten and/or block Admins. They make up their own rules for how Admins must behave, the Admins themselves no longer have any say. If they "discuss" things with Admins, it's only telling the Admins how it's going to be, they don't actually listen to anything an Admin says, no matter how thoroughly the actions of the Admin_Judges are shown to be bad for Wikipedia and a violation of policy. Is this something you would find pleasant ? Would you remain willing to work as an Admin ? StuRat 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thats a damn good idea Stu: an Admin behaviour review committee made up from non Admins only! Why not put it on the PumP?--Light current 06:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that I have been an editor for a long time, and an admin for a very short time. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you haven't yet been an Admin long enough to be corrupted by the power ? StuRat 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As for chauvinistic questions, we now have two feminists as Ref Desk regulars, one sexually liberal and one conservative, so that should provide balance there. I would suspect that most Ref Desk readers are young males, however, as surfing the web in general is mostly a young male thing. So, we would expect to get lots of questions relevant to young males, who would be uncomfortable asking them in an environment that wasn't anonymous. I think it's a good thing to be able to answer questions like "Is it unhealthy if a male doesn't ejaculate regularly". Note that this question might have been asked by a girl, who is being pressured by her b/f into sex using this argument. I have suggested a separate Sexuality Ref Desk, however, to shield the squeamish from such questions and answers. StuRat 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this question is appropriate for the RD, which is why I stated "Let me be clear that I don't propose censoring the RD." Rather, I asked that this type of question be approached in a mature fashion. And very often, they are handled appropriately already. Unfortunately, there are also occasions in which this does not seem to be the case. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think it's possible to get 100% compliance with any rule, however. This doesn't mean that we should start deleting comments and blocking users for those few "violations", however, as some Admins want to do. StuRat 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Review Requested (moved from WP:AIV)

The following person RadioKirk has:

• 1) blocked me without any warning.
• 2) claimed "If you're not a sockpuppet, you're a meatpuppet," (his evidence was that a user from a similar IP address was vandalizing both my page and other's and I am well aware of the meaning of both terms). I believe this violates Wiki standards for obvious reasons.
• 3) Completly vandalized my page...the only justification given was "(per user request; history, however, will remain)"

[please note: I am requesting that my page me deleted...not vandalized without justification]. I apologize for poor formating.

I am rememberkigali 131.94.167.215 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You posted an article red link - you are probably Rememberkigali (talk · contribs) --ArmadilloFromHell 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are Rememberkigali, then why did you ask for your account to be deleted in WP:AN --ArmadilloFromHell 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I actually moved this from AIV, where it was originally posted by rememberkigali. I've notified him of the move (I first put it on the discussion page of the wrong link, lol, but added it in the right place). Anchoress 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is self-basting—and the response was an unabashed attempt to hide evidence. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the user in question, Rememberkigali. Please help me. I am being harassed unfairly by an admin who has blocked me without warning and is completly abusing my account.

• I would like RadioKirk banned from editing my user-talk page because of the THREE clear violations listed above.

On a seperate issue, I would like either my account deleted or user talk page because of the negative attention, vandalism, and other issues.

• The legal implications of RadioKirk's continued potentially libelous accusations, name calling, and public harrassment merrits your full attention.
• Please take concrete steps to settle this dispute.

Thank you. 131.94.16.243 13:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Making legal threats isn't going to help you very much... yandman 13:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yadman response...please don't misunderstand...I have no time for legal bickering in courts. I think that is stupid.
• BUT Wikipedia states that one must report ANY potentially libelous actions to wiki administrators because of their legal implications. While it may not be a biography of living person on which the harms occured, it still is wikipedia policy.

• Do you disagree that libel must be reported for legal reasons? I think it should be. That is has to do with rememberkigali makes it more important to me.

• "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." That is wiki standard. In quotes.

• I am asking for fair review because of very unfair actions by others. Thank you.131.94.16.243 13:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Additional events: I was wrongfully accused of trolling, which I am deeply offended. Here is a threat that was made and a quote from the page. I am discussing a dispute...with facts.

Do not report "vandals" who clearly are not or you will be blocked for trolling. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Administrators are not empowered to block usernames for "trolling", although some accounts used for little other purpose have been blocked for this reason and have remained blocked." Source: trolling

This is in addition to the following:

• 1) Blocked me without any warning.
• 2) Claimed "If you're not a sockpuppet, you're a meatpuppet," and a "troll." (his evidence was that a user from a similar IP address was vandalizing both my page and other's and I am well aware of the meaning of both terms). I believe this violates Wiki standards for obvious reasons.
• 3) Completly vandalized my user talk page without any written justification. He has sent threatening messages after the fact as well. This follows another vandal attempt by another user.

4) There has been little to no attempt at discussion.

I hope these facts are sufficent.

• I am using a different IP address in good faith to address this single issue, which has not been resolved yet (this is to make a clear distinction from an unfair accusation of "troll" "sockpuppet" or "meat puppet". Please note: I am rememberkigali

I can act in good faith as an editor...but please do not let this unfair treatment continue.131.94.216.45 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the only reply I need make. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NotJudaism

You guys might want to take a look at this one. It's already up for deletion. Any advice? MetsFan76 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ANI's not the place for this but I must say that the above template is the most qualified speedy deletion candidate per T1 that I've ever seen. (→Netscott) 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What might need looking into is the spamming going on surrounding this template. (→Netscott) 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I know exactly who you are talking about before I clicked on the link. MetsFan76 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While I personally understand the sentiment behind it, and believe that user:Inigmatus may be skirting, or crossing, the bounds of WP:NPOV with his/her edits to the messianic sequence of articles, the template was not the proper way to approach the issue, and so I speedied it. -- Avi 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ולמלשינים אל-תהי תקוה --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from provocations, in prayer form or otherwise. El_C 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Posting in non-English in the English Wikipedia's public forums is rude. If you want to do it on your or other Hebrew speakers' Talk pages, be my guest, but don't do it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And it was recreated, by Daniel575 a few hours later - apparently, "The first admin who performs a speedy delete here, is going to get serious trouble. I am not going to rest before that admin loses his admin status. Dear admin, if you want to delete this template, follow proper procedure.". Proper procedure is the speedy deletion of polemic templates. Proto::type 10:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User has recreated it, DBd it and warned user. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedied by myself. Duja► 11:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User claims on his talk page to have left 13 November. Block to prevent further disruption imo. – Chacor 11:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Use Deletion review. El_C 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user really needs to learn about NPOV - look at this for example. Morwen - Talk 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems I'm an "anti-semitic British non-Jew". Yay for me. Oh, template has been protected from recreation, and Daniel has been warned about civility. He is back, in his words, to turn his user page into a "virtual memorial of the personal attacks leveled against me". Proto::type 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just read that on his page. He should be banned for the anti-semitic British non-Jew comment. MetsFan76 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kdbuffalo

Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs)/136.183.146.158 (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week on Sunday (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2#Blocked_for_a_week). Tonight the same editor was editing again from 136.183.154.18 (talk · contribs). I have blocked him for the duration of the week block, but have not reset the week block on all accounts. I am not exactly uninvolved, but I believe that blocking for block evasion is uncontroversial enough. I welcome input (feel free to tell me if I am wrong). Guettarda 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as a very involved other use this seems to have exhausted community patience. Over 20 users endorsed the basic RfC complaint and his editing behavior changed not at all. Indeed, his main response on the RfC page was to make accusations at other editors and to assert that "JoshuaZ, the creator of this RFC/complaint page, is a evolutionists zealot and who is on a current crusade against me". At minimum the user should be put on community probation from editing all evolution related articles(as proposed by Pschemp in the RfC) and a general community ban may be more in order. JoshuaZ 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I reset the blocks for the original two, and extended the block to nine days. Feel free to alter that if that is insufficient. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the blocks issued to date, as well as gathering consenus for a community ban. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my patience is certainly exhausted. After being engaged in discussion by 136.183.146.158 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) at talk:Dinosaur tonight, I checked his contrib history and found a near-identical series of disruptive edits to other science articles. Ken was blocked for disruption and trolling, and now evades the block in order to continue disruption and trolling. His history makes it clear that he has little interest in building an encyclopedia; POV attacks on articles that disturb his personal beliefs are his mainstay. Repeated discussions, warnings, and blocks have had no effect; stronger action appears to be necessary. Doc Tropics 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As his IP continually changes, I respectfully suggest all users involved to please keep an eye out for any similar IPs editing similar articles. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He was also editing from 136.183.154.15 (talk · contribs) yesterday. He seems to have little respect for our rules and policies, and I am not optimistic that Tariq's block will do much to slow him down. I'd going to hope for the best, but if he continues to evade the block I would recommend a community block. Guettarda 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find most editors who have had the experience of dealing with Ken would support such action. *Spark* 14:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...the multiple sock puppets already is not a good sign for the future. Wait and see I guess. pschemp | talk 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose semi-protecting his habitual targets; this has been effective in the past. He isn't trying to vandalize all Wikipedia; he's just trying to evangelize certain articles. By semi-protecting you could halt the disruption without blocking his entire university from anon editing.

Unfortunately this would be a large swath of articles and most of his disruption has been on the talk pages. Semi-protecting talk pages is a no-no. JoshuaZ 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal now has his version of article protected!

This was moved from WP:AIV: Droliver has been vandalizing the breast implant article for months. He is a plastic surgeon who keeps adding links to promotional websites (that plastic surgeons pay to be listed on) -- thus turning this article into free ads for plastic surgeons (presumably including himself, but since I don't know his real name, I can't say for sure). What I can say with certainty is that there are numerous factual errors in his version of the article, in addition to bias. He removed research articles, FDA regulatory statements, and other information about the risks of silicone implants. The FDA now has a 40+ page "informed consent" document to warn patients about the risks, but you'd never know if from Droliver's version on Wikpedia. After reverting to his version of the article several times today, he persuaded Samir to block the article from any subsequent changes. This is all new to me, I am seeking help. Drzuckerman 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Viridae^Talk 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that I took a quick look at the contributions of Droliver (talk · contribs) and there's a definite concern about POV pushing. Pascal.Tesson 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the edits to Breast implant qualify as vandalism by any stretch. I wasn't persuaded by anyone to protect Breast implant but did so because of the edit warring. The issues are being discussed at Talk:Breast implant -- Samir धर्म 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's always the wrong version. -- Samir धर्म 07:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Always! I LOL'd as soon as I noticed this section header on my watchlist. It's always the wrong version : )Doc Tropics 09:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The people in edit wars always think there's a game afoot. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the version locked was not the most recent, nor the most accurate. Equally interesting how vehemently the one doing the blocking defends himself. I hope that he can be as diligent in helping resolve the issues and arriving at an article that is accurate - that states the recent approval of the breast implants, along with the conditions and why they were imposed. Ditto with the recommendations. Also reading the sources would be useful, in seeing how they have been shaded or actually misstated. Rather than defending himself so, perhaps Samir can put his energies to constructive use. I not that the comment by Pascal was simply ignored by Samir and his choir. WHen an objective third party sees a problem, it would behoove the admin to pay attention.Jance 07:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting rather fed up with your attacks -- Samir धर्म 07:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Us admins always protect The Wrong Version. Grandmasterka 07:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't think I was attacking anyone by moving this here - thust thought it was a bit more appropriate (and amusing) Viridae^Talk 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely amusing. Seriously, someone want to do something about this? [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Personal attacks are getting out of hand and I'm involved. Previously User:Jgwlaw, you can see the block log. It's making it impossible to make any progress on fixing the Breast implant situation -- Samir धर्म 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tennis expert (talk · contribs) - WP:POINT and constant disputes

This user has been problematic for a while, but for lack of a solution anywhere else, I'm bringing this here since I'm involved in the problem. This user has a history of getting into disputes with other editors over petty things, and making WP:POINT edits. He approached a WP:3RR violation on 2006-07 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season by constantly reverting a sentence about rapid deepening, and had an unprovoked and heated exchange with the editors there after making edits that weren't within the standards of the tropical cyclone WikiProject.

More recently, he decapitalized "Southern Hemisphere" in that article, and was reverted since it is capitalized in Southern Hemisphere. After being reverted twice, he went over to the Southern Hemisphere article and immediately decapitalized almost every mention of "Southern Hemisphere" (he has done this twice). In addition, he changed the heading on the 3RR warning I left on his talk page (he actually did this twice), claiming that he has made thousands of edits here and has not violated the rule (whether he has or not is irrelevant). The talk page and contribs provide further evidence of incivility when it comes to 3RR ([23], for instance). --Coredesat 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the "history of getting into disputes with other editors over petty things"? And where is the history of being "problematic for a while"? There is no evidence to support either claim. I have had disagreements with User: Chacor twice, and Cordesat has sided with him both times, best evidenced by adding unreasonable warnings to my talk page about the three revert rule. The warnings are unreasonable because my 2000+ edits history proves that I am well aware of and have never violated that rule. Cordesat, however, keeps warning me about the rule whenever Chacor and I disagree about something. Cordesat is willing to stick a warning on my talk page after one revert but declines to stick the same warning on Chacor's talk page after he has had made two reverts. Why is that? I am truly puzzled. By the way, I changed the heading for the warning on my talk page because the warning was clearly unreasonable in my opinion. I did not edit, delete, or archive the warning itself in any way - it's still there for anyone to see.

When have I ever made a WP:POINT edit? Never. Chacor pointed out that "southern hemisphere" should be capitalized because the Wikipedia article Southern Hemisphere capitalizes the term. When I went over to the article, I noticed that "southern hemisphere" was capitalized sometimes and not capitalized other times. In other words, the article was internally inconsistent. I fixed this problem and made the capitalization of that term consistent with ordinary usage. Despite my explanation, Cordesat persists in claiming that my fixes were WP:POINT. Why is he not assuming my good faith WP:AGF in making these edits? And even if both "Southern Hemisphere" and "southern hemisphere" were stylistically acceptable, which they are not, note the obligation of editors to ensure that articles are internally consistent about style issues.

The problem I encountered about the standards of the 2006-07_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season is that no one would tell me what the standards were. They just kept saying that I violated them. I repeatedly asked to be told the standards and was ignored for 3 days. Look at the discussion page that Cordesat cites to see how perplexed I was.

As for the "rapid deepening" issue, I reverted a change twice, discussed my logic for doing so each time, and tried (but failed) to understand the logic of Chacor for opposing the change. Cordesat's characterization of my actions as "repeatedly" is at least a slight exaggeration, as is his claim that I got into an "unprovoked and heated exchange" with "editors." The disagreement was not "unprovoked," was not uncivil, and was with only two editors: Chacor and Cordesat himself.

I would ordinarily assume good faith about Cordesat's complaints, but I think the evidence supports the conclusion that this whole thing is nothing more than harrassment of me for trying to improve an article that Chacor and Cordesat have long been associated with. For example, look at my talk page and you will see a comment from Cordesat about how the author of an article is entitled to decide whether certain edits are acceptable. In this context, i.e., more than a mere disagreement about two acceptable styles, that's an incorrect reflection of Wikipedia policy about authors and editors not "owning" articles. Tennis expert 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, this user would meet the definition we have in troll (internet): a person who enters an established community (in this case, a WP:WPTC article) and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory [...] messages. That's all I have to say, I am sick of having to deal with this user repeatedly breaking the set wikiproject conventions only to say later that "if they aren't this way, they should be changed to be so". – Chacor 10:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an uncivil comment if there ever were one. Honestly, I am not trying to cause disruption anywhere on Wikipedia, and I think an objective look at my edit history would prove it. I am simply trying to improve articles and fix problems where I see them. What I've encountered on 2006-07_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season is uncivil behavior toward a person who is new to the article WP:CIV, a failure to assume good faith WP:AGF, a condemnation of the person for not knowing the standards, an illogical reluctance to disclose those standards even when repeatedly asked about them, unreasonable opposition to article improvements (perhaps in violation of WP:OWN), unwarranted and biased postings of 3RR warnings by an administrator who knows or should know better, and then an unjustified public complaint against me here by that same administrator. And please tell me why "set wikiproject conventions" should be set in stone and not subject to improvement. Where is the Wikipedia policy to support that? Tennis expert 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when are "the standards of the tropical cyclone WikiProject" policy? I keep seeing all of these discussions about how WikiProjects have the right to set rules for how certain articles can be named and edited, but I have yet to see any Wikipedia-wide policy which supports this assertion. On the other hand, I do see WP:OWN. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the comment by Cordesat that Tennis expert mentions in the context of WP:OWN: In the case of the changes you made, the person who starts the article gets to choose whether to capitalize "Southern Hemisphere" or not. Don't change it without discussing it first. --Coredesat 07:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may give my opinion, from what I read it appears that Tennis expert engaged in edits that did not meet the agreed upon standard of inclusion of various sources and he was wrong in being persistent with his edits. Also the Southern Hemisphere edits show no evidence of it being "internally inconsistent" as described by him. But nevertheless this discussion does not appear to have any "unprovoked and heated exchange" described by Coredesat. The 3RR warning seem like they might have been a little premature at times due to the users frustration with him. I would conclude that Tennis expert is quite persistent in pushing what he seems is right and editing to make a point instead of sticking to discussion. If Tennis expert indeed sees no sense in the agreed upon guidelines yet, as his comments suggest, I would urge Tennis expert to take a break from editing this subject and let things cool down, and then get into an editless discussion until things are cleared out. - Tutmosis 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just getting really concerned that the denizens of WikiProjects have decided on rules that they expect every other editor to abide by, in violation of Wikipedia editing policy. Just because a Project claims ownership of an article, doesn't mean that they actually do. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Zoe on the above. This is becoming a real concern. Kukini 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not about us "owning" the article, but when there are conventions set, one expects someone new not to just butt in, but rather to discuss possible changes. The conventions are accepted and followed by every member of the wikiproject; why should we let someone who isn't part and just has a trivial interest in that article break it as he wishes, then when confronted about it say something to the lines of "I don't like it, it's not good, change it"? It is equivalent of someone new joining wikipedia, making personal attacks, and when warned saying "therefore, your policy is wrong, change it" - this policy has been agreed on by consensus. The wikiproject covers all TC articles, it is ridiculous to say that we can't set minimum acceptable standards for articles we cover. I would say we have one of the highest turnover rates for high-quality new articles, and that's thanks a lot to our expectations. – Chacor 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know I have just a "trivial" interest in the topic? When have you asked me about my level of interest? Unlike you, I don't profess to know your state of mind, so perhaps you truly don't believe you "own" the article. But when a new-to-the-article editor makes a change and in response you curtly tell the editor to "learn the standards" and then refuse to divulge those standards while continuing to publicly berate the editor about not knowing the standards, you are de facto exercising "ownership" of the article. When you refuse to discuss improving the standards of an article with an editor despite being asked to engage in a discussion of them, you are de facto exercising "ownership" of both the article and the standards. When you refuse to discuss the logical basis of the existing standards of an article with an editor while publicly berating the editor for wanting to improve them, you are de facto exercising "ownership" of both the article and the standards. And equating anything I've done with making personal attacks, as your last post appears to be doing, violates innumerable Wikipedia policies, foremost among them are civility and assuming good faith. Tennis expert 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, and I must say a typical response from someone who might meet the definition I laid out above. NPA was used only as an example. If you wish to make use of that and read deeper into nothing and come up with some ridiculous attack, go ahead. – Chacor 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, he has been enforcing wikiproject standards on tennis articles, such as in this warning to an anonymous editor who changed the scoring format on a few tennis player articles. I find it strange that he does this there, but just makes changes on the tropical cyclone-related articles without discussing them with the members of that wikiproject first. --Coredesat 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Block review requested

Why do federal clowns delete calls for evidence. This thread should be left alone. If there are blatant personal attacks then they're probably just against Federal Clowns. Clowns aren't persons. You know what, you can block my account too. From now on I'm only going to post anonymously. Mark the calendar. Today marks the end of Wikipedia's faux openness. --68.30.217.2 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for disruption and trolling. As demonstrated in this discussion on his talkpage, he had been adding a nonexistant category to the talk page for the September 11, 2001 attacks article.[24], [25] He was questioned about it and deliberately acted dumb. I asked him to remove it and he still acted trollish. He then added it to his own talkpage[26] Cplot has been trolling various articles and has been repeatedly trying to add NPOV tags for which there is no consensus and when asked what he feels the issues are that make the article unbalanced, he gives vague referencing that the article is controlled by the feds (US Government) and the like. Cplot has also been blocked twice in the last 8 days for 3RR on the same article.--MONGO 09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need tendentious editors who act this way. I support your action, MONGO. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"My guess is it's a bug in the Wikmedia software attributing it to me. I would leave it alone. It could be an important administrative or technical flag"

Talk about an imaginative excuse this takes the cake, still trying to figure out what USEBACA is supposed to represent, must be that wikimedia bug... nevertheless I agree with Ghirla ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good block Alex Bakharev 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Righteous block. A pound says that this does not fix the issue, see you in a week or so for the indef :-) Guy (Help!) 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A week? I'll put $1.95 (to match your pound) that he'll be back as an anon or sock within a couple of days. Still, with the block, it might be time to request removal of edit protection from September 11, 2001 attacks. --StuffOfInterest 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While now blocked...Cplot has readded the nonexistant template in an edit he made on his talkpage.[27]...I see little evidence this editor will reform.--MONGO 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean a category (not a template). That's not a template there, unless I'm mssing what you're referring too? Either way, what could be the disruption of a user adding a template or category to their own talk page? I'm not clear what allegations are being made here? --67.37.179.61 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to note that an anon popped up and made claims about federal authorities (that's you, MONGO - say, could you tell us who really killed Kennedy?) blocking the IPs and accounts of dissenters, posting all over the Village Pump and Help Desk before being summarily execut... er, blocked. The message mentions Cplot. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

These IPs are all the same ISP

Same ISP as what. As me. I posted those. Not CPlot. We have differentt ISPs and now you're tyring to insuate these are the same as his ISP. You clowns will be exposed. Make no mistake about it. --68.30.225.68 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• 70.8.171.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [28]
• 70.8.159.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.151.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.139.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.132.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.91.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.56.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.87.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [29]
• 68.30.26.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.46.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.31.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.170.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Aude (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Verily uncandy Block occassioned by what I believe is revenge. A nomination that appears to be based on pure prejucial facts, such as cplot's previous track 3RR record of being blocked. I hope Mongo will have the decency to realize that he is only making the situation worse and is not only avoiding the main issue but violating WP:Block. My concerns are being discussed on user:Mongo's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs)

I have extended Cplots block to indefinite due to him using IP's to evade the block. Ip's and Cplot make the same spelling errors, and there is of course a list Cplot socks--MONGO 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also have to say that looking at the list of suspected CPlot sockpuppets, you're not getting Cplot or me. You're just casting a wide net that will hurt other Wikipedia contributors. It would be better for the Wikipedia community to just come to an amicable solution to this dispute. There's a lot of IPs out there. I don't know exactly how many, but it's a lot. And I don't care which one I use. On the other hand, you have not identified any that CPlot uses. How about next time I use Mongo's IP address. Which one are you using Mongo. I'll use that to post next time. --68.30.199.11 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing that's funny. CPlot posting on the chicago bears and football (from one of the socalled sockpuppets). You don't know CPlot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.199.11 (talk • contribs)

Possible admin abuse which needs to be investigated

For months MONGO has been involved in a prolonged edit war with 9/11 pages, including the September 11, 2001 attacks. On September 11, 2001 attacks there maybe some WP:OWN violations, but there are surely many WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:Civil violations of MONGO. There have been several ArbComs about this, the latest is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence, which was initiated by MONGO.

Since 21 November 2006 [30], on the September 11, 2001 attacks wikipage, MONGO has edit warred with Cplot on September 11, 2001 attacks, a newbie with less than 1500 edits. MONGO provoked Cplot every step of the way, calling his edits trolling and harrassment. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#MONGO_has_repeatedly_violated_our_Civility_and_No_personal_attacks_policies

MONGO just erased this comment from an anon, which defended Cplot. [31] I restored the edit.[32]

For a small taste of MONGO's administrative behavoir, please see the above, where MONGO threated to ban Salvnut and several editors and admins condemed this action: Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F

Suggestions

1. A couple of admins need to look over the edit war between Cplot and MONGO.
2. Based on #Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F and the actions with Cplot, MONGO should ask a third party neutral admin to look at punishing editors he is in arguments with. MONGO should not do this himself.

Signed: Travb (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I second travb suggestion. I believe there is grounds for an RFC based on the lack of wikipedia civility. (see comments at user:MONGO talk page for more information on the abuse of WP:Block.) I can definatelly sympathise if cplot is suckpepetteering. However, there may be grounds to extend the current block if he is. Nevertheless the alleged sockpuppets is all a secondary matter... and again prejucidial information that should not be considered for the original block. I have investigated the communications between cplot and MONGO and I believe MONGO has abused his administrive powers because of his lack of civility towards cplot and then his biased controversial block, which violates WP:Block rule. Currently I have tried negotions with MONGO as a neutral party and this doesn't appear to be working. As part of my AMA affiliation and ethics to WP:DR and wikirules, I will need to follow through with all the necessary steps.--74.101.14.217 16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Um, stirring up old shit matters wouldn't get us anywhere. Its the talk of the now. Majority of the users above seem to endorse this block. Period. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Those admins support this block because they got one side of the story. This is not "old" matters. There is a consistent pattern of possible Admin abuse. See #Is_mentioning_Occam.27s_Razor_a_threat.3F where the person wrote the following:

This has been a problem once before when MONGO wanted to have an article call some people "conspiracy theorists", another user reverted that as not being neutral, and MONGO blocked them and threatened to reblock for a week if the user reverted him again. In that case there was not even a thin justification like this 'threat of violence with Occam's razor'... rather a direct statement that he would use his admin position to 'win' the content dispute. While the community largely gave him a pass (incorrectly IMO as that block threat was beyond the pale) there was a general agreement that he should refrain from admin actions/threats for disputes he is involved in. This current incident seems to be very much along the same lines. --CBD 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This has happened many times before, where MONGO gets in a edit war and bans a user. Travb (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Travb, my, my, defending the actions of an obvious disrupter again? Didn't we already see you do this immediately after the egregious harassment I dealt with from User:Rootology? You remeber, he was indefinitely blocked and immediately upon seeing that, you made some really bad accusations against Fred Bauder and myself...defending the actions of those here to disrupt or harass certainly is something to question.--MONGO 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a disrupter most definitely does not make them so. Especially when the only evidence for disruption seems to be removing your edits, and you threaten to block more if they are removed again. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what else we can call them...the evidence for disruption was more than apparent to anyone who bothered to examine the case.--MONGO 05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess CBDunkerson, CBD (who brought up the threat you made to Pokipsy76 above), Pokipsy76 (who you blocked above in an edit war), Salvnut (who you threatened to blok indefinetly for a comment about Ocumms Razor), Seabhan (who you edit warred with for 6 months and then called an Arbcom), and those six or 7 editors who said you were out of line are disrupters too? I will address the entire case against Rootology and my role in it in detail here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. Including the names that you called me and all the threats you made to me, stating that my comments were trolling and harrassment.[33][34] [35]Travb (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, see you there.--MONGO 05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

USER DEMIURGE

User Demiurge has deleted all my edits and is claiming I am "banned" under a different username. Is this some kind of inter-Wikipedia squabbling or something?

I have no idea to what he or she is referring and as this is my first day on Wikipedia, I did not respond to his initial message to me saying I "might" be someone else. I just forgot about it.

Please help.

Andrew Mikijaniec.

Mikijaniec 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This user's first edit was to copy the contents of the userpage of yesterday's Rms125a sock to their own page. They're also editing pages like List of notable breast cancer patients according to survival status, and Ovarian cancer, which are interests of Rms, and using other distinctive editing quirks like putting external links inside parentheses [36]. For more, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com and User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Demiurge 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did copy the userboxes b/c I don't know how to make them myself, I'm kind of a Luddite, but I only used those that apply to me. If that was wrong, I apologize and I am willing to apologize to the person whose boxes I copied if you direct me to do so.

As far as an interest in cancer, my family has suffered enormously from that disease, and breast and ovarian cancers interest me particularly, so what? I guess it's possible that with millions of users on this dictionary, a couple may actually share the same interests.

Thank you for your time and attention. Mikijaniec 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Luddite": User_talk:Demiurge/Archive2#Like_I_said User_talk:Jack_O'Lantern/Archive1#Ryan_Phillippe.
  

"Canard": Talk:List_of_Catholic_American_Actors#Continuation_6

In other words, this user uses the same unusual words as previous Rms125a sockpuppets. Demiurge 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, but I find it a bit unusual that 2 different people would have a tendency to use such obscure words.--Isotope23 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a clear open and shut case. Morwen - Talk 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Luddite" is hardly an obscure word... This user certainly seems suspicious, though. --Tango 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell him not to do this again Please

"You're lucky he didn't call the fbi after what you did.--D-Boy 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)" [37]. Please warn him not to repeat such things. Thanking you in anticipation. --- ALM 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your concern is understandable, but this edit is 5 days old. A caution was not inappropriate under these circumstances, which have been discussed extensively on this noticeboard and are also being discussed in an arbitration case. BhaiSaab has left the project. He seems to have changed his mind, although he may soon be subject to a one-year ArbCom ban. Unless there has been some further incident, no action would seem to be required at this stage. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It also should be mentioned that some context would be helpful when reporting something like this. It's unclear from just that passage if this is a WP:LEGAL threat, a personal attack, incivility or just banter between two people who know each other. Adding a bit more information relating to what this message was in response to would help an admin determine if any action is merited.--Isotope23 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter in which context he has given that remarks. Such remarks are not acceptable even if Bahi Saab is banned for-life from wikipedia. I feel it bad if no admin find such remarks offensive enough to stop the User:Dangerous-Boy repeating them again on some other user page and at some other time. --- ALM 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A similar comment has been repeated by the same user on Hkelkar's talk page, but I don't take such frivolous remarks seriously. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

long-term spamming (at times through IPs) by User:DAde

i would like to report a case of constant and disruptive spamming by User:DAde and his IP's through which he is continually inserting inappropriate material on a few select articles (Islam-related articles particularly Islamic extremist terrorism, and mainly via IP on Islam, Qur'an, Criticism of Islam and Criticism of the Qur'an). there have been dozens of editors having to revert the spam he keeps inserting (it is present on User:DAde's user page showing that these IPs are connected to DAde, and they operate on exactly the same articles as User:DAde). sometimes the IP's have been used to evade blocks or are used so that he isn't perceived as excessively reverting/spamming with his usual account.

• DAde (talk · contribs) (sample diffs of identical disruptive spamming: [38], [39], [40], there are perhaps literally over a 100 edits identical to these)

behaviour mirrored by various disruptive IPs (likely using dialup):

• 84.146.227.164 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.227.244 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.246.131 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.222.48 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.254.84 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.216.205 (talk · contribs)
• 84.146.219.94 (talk · contribs)

i would request administrator intervention here and believe that this editor is starting to test the community's patience, as he has been inserting exactly the same spam for quite a while now. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:DAde has had 4 blocks already, [41] for this type of behavior. This is getting to be WP:POINT-making.--Isotope23 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And 84.146.219.94 (talk · contribs). It looks like he has a list of Qur'an verses that he wants to publicize, and he repeatedly adds them to any page he thinks they'll go on, ignoring concensus. I support blocking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

most recently (literally 30 mins ago): 84.146.226.65 (talk · contribs). ITAQALLAH 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Community patience" ban on User:DAde

This user always utilizing the same German dialup company has also been chronically vandalizing the former Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history The IPs are as follows:

• 84.146.219.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.219.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.238.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.241.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.241.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 84.146.233.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And now that the Muslim Guild has been merged in the WP:ISLAM he's started this same pattern there:

• 84.146.227.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [42]

If ever there was a pattern of behavior that merited a community banning this editor has demonstrated it.

• Fully support 100% community banishment of User:DAde from the project. (→Netscott) 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• User:DAde and the above IP's have a combined total of 0 worthwhile, constructive, or substantative edits among them. It's alot of POV pushing, WP:POINT making, outright vandalism, and general tendentious editing.--Isotope23 18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted his user page as being utterly inappropriate, I endorse a ban. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I support a ban. I have told this user 2 or 3 times to edit more constructively and consider the opinions of other users, and yet his behavior has not changed at all. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Also endorse, the editor has made no constructive edits whatsoever. JoshuaZ 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• getting to be? How about there. WP:Point and I endorse a ban as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• i too endorse a ban. ITAQALLAH 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. I nominated his userpage for deletion. --Strothra 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I blocked the account. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I fully support JzG's action. Sorry for my late involvment in this board. DAde was a pain in the ass. Netscott, Tom Harrison and myself did all what they could but our actions were in vain. I am not sure what to do about the IPs he's been using! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm tired so can't run and check this right now, but can non-admins vote here? Danny Lilithborne 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATOR NEEDED

To the next available administrator:

I would like to request a "checkuser" as per the advice of Isotope23 so that I can resume my editing and have my edits (which have been deleted by Demiurge) restored.

Demiurge believes I am someone else, but Isotope23 has indicated that good faith should be assumed but as he is not an administrator his words are not binding, and Demiurge refuses to respond to my inquiries on his talkpage.

I really can't believe that because I happen to have a good vocabulary and grammar and sometimes use words that others don't understand or that someone else may have used ages ago that I can be prohibited from using Wikipedia.

Please help!!

Thank you for your time and attention.

Mikijaniec 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is over there→, but self-checks are almost never run, because it is possible for a knowledgeable person to game the system to make it look like two unrelated users. Checkuser is only a means of confirming by technical means what is already suspected; you need to work out the reasons for the suspicion in the first place with the editors or admins involved. Thatcher131 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)

Mikkalai (talk · contribs) has re-opened this closed AfD even though there is an active and vigorous discussion going on at WP:DRV. I attempted to re-close the AfD, but Mikkali re-opened it and then protected it. I will not wheel war, but I believe that not only is it ridiculous to have two discussions ongoing, but Mikkalia's actions in protecting the page were completely inappropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this in full. Clearly Mikkalai has not bothered to read the DRV or we would not be having this discussion in the first place. -- Tawker 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is going to happen, please let's not wheel war over deletion/undeletion of the article. It has too many edits in its history, you'll bring the servers to their knees. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He re-opened the discussion because he felt it shouldn't have finished, but protected the page making it impossible for anyone to discuss anything there? I can't think of anything to say that wouldn't violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, so I'm saying nothing. --Tango 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed as well. Protection is a clear abuse of admin powers.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to look at the history for more than 3 seconds. He downgraded the page from full to semi-protection. Note: I agree with the closure and am not defending his actions, rather clarifying what's going on. -- Steel 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Actually, to clarify. Someone else, who endorsed the deletion, fully protected the page since there was no reason for anyone to edit the page, and it would have likely been a troll magnet. What Mikkalai did was change it from full protection to semi-protection so (most) people could continue to participate in the AfD. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting and trying to re-open the discussion is inappropriate, but wheel warring to undelete the article is worse. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I protected it because it was being vandalized. It simply doesn't make sense to have both the AfD and the DRV open at the same time, so I endorse Zoe's and Tawker's actions and not Mikkalai's for process reasons, completely separate from my support for Tawker's original deletion. Chick Bowen 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Mikkalai has a problem with the close (and it's pretty clear that he does), he's quite free to register his objection at Deletion Review...Mackensen (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring at Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

This is becoming silly - the page has already been protected, blocks made on particularly aggressive users acting inappropriately. Now the edit war has returned over an undeleted image, partly due to the perceived lack of discussion over the original deletion and subsequent rapid DRV. Please could a neutral administrator take a look in and try and do something about this? QmunkE 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs to be re-protected. If the three-revert rule is violated but a couple of the editors, they ought to get the standard twenty-four-hour block. Only if this becomes a melee should this be re-protected, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd editing

WTGDMan1986 (talk · contribs) has been warned numerous times about ridiculous edit summaries, including several times by myself. This edit is pretty much the bottom straw for me. He added several userboxes to his user page with the edit summary: Added even more userboxes I forgot a month back. Shane McMahon can leave that N.C. state trooper alone when it comes to girls or Jun Kazama will BREAK HIS ARMS. So THERE. Many of his edit summaries include personal attacks on vandals and just belligerance unrelated to the actual edits. Here are some other examples [43], [44], [45] (which was a totally inappropriate revert as it is, but thats another story). These are the ones that I found most inappropriate [46] [47] [48], [49]. More recently there have been edits like [50] [51] [52] and [53].

In addition, the user is saying things like "you have been reported" in the edit summaries, then reporting users to WP:AIV without ever warning them on their user talk pages. Can someone PLEASE intervene here and examine this? It's getting frustrating to deal with. Thanks, Metros232 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there's the user page which is being used to write a sort of odd novel on Wikipedia's dime. Metros232 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He's just under twelve years old. Problem? Anyway, I think the excessive irrelevant content ought to be deleted. This isn't his personal website. -- tariqabjotu 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait never mind; that was one of the fictional characters that was under twelve. I'm deleting the irrelevant content. -- tariqabjotu 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jghfutikdpe3 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

[54] [55] [56] User page vandalism and threats. Chondrite 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I indefblocked. Anyone want to pursue the threats issue? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is a sock for blocked user The hobgoblin (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), compare their user page and their comments on Mulatto. looks like both should be permanently blocked, SqueakBox 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And AmyCrescent (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) engaging in the same persoanl attack abuse [57], SqueakBox 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy's using Bell Canada, which is dynamic. We can't block the underlying IPs. --Rory096 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vicious vandal User:Squek below, No77, same user, thanks for the info, SqueakBox 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest is User:Luda1, SqueakBox 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Requst for review of a block and semiprotection of Thomas Jefferson

Yesterday, new user Piratesofsml (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) began replacing most instances of the word 'deist' in Thomas Jefferson with 'christian'. I indef blocked after a few warnings because the editor was using fraudulent edit summaries that suggested trolling to me, [58] [59] [60], but later reduced to 24 hours because comments on his talk page suggested a willingness to discuss and attempt to support his changes. The user, having bragged about about his leet IP changing skillz and asking why he would stop if he could evade his block, proceeded to continue to replace his preferred version using various IPs, as well as blanking and otherwise vandalizing the article, leading me to semiprotect and extend the main account's block to one week. Bringing here for review. -- Vary | Talk 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More generally, I have all US Presidents on my watchlist and Jefferson is by far the most persistently vandalized. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Lăutari

User Greier was banned for violating WP:3RR, however, as soon as he disappeared, anonymous users came in and repeated his pattern of reverting the article, even going as far as to mock my wording of the revert, and spuriously requesting discussion(as he didn't even start a topic on the article's talk page). Please respond with all possible haste.--Vercalos 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:RPP. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

romaniroma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--213.42.21.80 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I find that extremely hard to believe. Chick Bowen 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Afrika paprika anons

Apparently Afrika paprika, with whom I have never dealt before, is back vandalizing a variety of articles. See 89.172.195.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for example. I have sprotected all of the pages in question, but now he's started vandalizing my Talk page, which I don't want to sprotect ... User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had to sprotect my page because of this idiot's vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspected account used to evade block

User:Whedonette started her account in September and has 109 edits, three of which are in the main namespace. However, she has a knowledge of Wikipedian policies that I have never seen in such a new user, particularly one which only made its first edit on November 9. Given that the account has been solely used to aggressively nominate items at MfD, I suspect there may be block-evading going on. Has anyone been blocked in the past few months with such deletionist tendencies? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User is also making some fairly erratic edits. She initially accused me of personally attacking her for questioning her editing history, but now an admin has backed me up and has pointed out that this is indeed suspect, she has become oddly conciliatry. There's something strange going on here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that my intuition is often wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that Whedonette is the incarnation of banned User: Cheese Dreams, aka User:-Ril-. Whedonette demonstrates an aggressive & disruptive wikilawyering similar to this banned user, as well as other marked yet inconclusive similarities. Does anyone else share this intuition? Or am I simply being paranoid? -- llywrch 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. CheeseDreams/Ril struck me as far less assertive, far more focused on religous articles, and less intelligent. Most of all, the Ril sarcasm struck me as primarily juvenile in nature, while Whedonette's is ... sharper, more angry, more didactic. Do I find the pattern of contribution's suspicious? Yes. But until and unless I see something that falls afoul of a policy, I -- and everyone else -- should assume good faith. My take. My opinion. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I see this because I had far more interaction with CD: in her earliest incarnation, she was always eager to file a complaint with the ArbCom whenever someone crossed her. And CD had a knack for convincing a number of editors, who were normally at odds with one another, to join together & complain about her -- much as Whedonette is beginning to do now.

I'll admit that "assume good faith" should be how we treat every new contributor -- yet there are times that we need to also watch them carefully. Frankly, if Whedonette is Cheese Dreams, but she becomes less confrontational in her future actions here, I won't mind her staying. (And if she isn't, my hope is that Whedonette simply changes her style so people like me don't associate her with a notorious, banned user.) People change, & sometimes it's for the better. But sometimes it is only to change their online behavior enough to obscure their identity. -- llywrch 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotional efforts Liberty Dollar

Pmomotional efforts involving profits and politics are in play. This says "CALL TO ACTION: Contact the media: Urge the media to report on the Liberty Dollar! [...] IMPORTANT...THIS JUST IN: Help...a few self-described experts, working through Wikipedia, are at it again. This time they've added a Pros and Cons section on the Liberty Dollar. While this Wikipedia article is more accurate than earlier versions, it still needs to be updated. Please take a moment and post a quick comment (hopefully to the "Pro" section!) at: Liberty Dollar." Liberty Dollar says "The Liberty Dollar is a private currency [...] issued by [...] "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Code" [but] the company that mints and warehouses Liberty Dollars (SMI in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) is a for-profit business.". WAS 4.250 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not just delete the "Pros and Cons" section? It is unencyclopedic and complete bollocks to boot. JChap2007 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh

This user continues to insert original research into Wikipedia despite many warnings and a block not too. His edits primarily inserting the text are into Grand Slam Champion and Triple Crown Champion. He first started this a week ago, and he was blocked for it. His first day back from a block and he again reinserts it and removes the sprotection tag (I had the articles semi-protected a while back for IP's adding the original research into Wikipedia, and have asked for sources before but nothing has been given to me as now). I ask for a longer block for Vlh if nessecary, but this slow-pace vandalism of sorts needs to stop. semper fi — Moe 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp block review

Pschemp (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

This is a flow-on from an above section. In the section above, Trödel (talk • contribs) expressed concern over two blocks by pschemp while I expressed concern over an additional two blocks without warnings:

• 207.70.152.4 for 48 hours and 68.100.239.10 for 1 week
• NYScholar for 24 hours and this IP for 1 week.

I've found her responses to requests for review of these blocks less than edifying. For example, after telling me to "get [my] facts straight" when I later explained that she was mistaken, she simply removed my message without comment. As is her right of course, but for the fact that making mistakes when blocking for "trolling" has fairly serious consequences, and learning from mistakes is generally a good thing.

While the vast majority of her blocks appear to be perfectly sound username/vandalism blocks, I'd like to see pschemp use more caution with regards to blocking for "trolling" and in particular to both use warnings before applying them and bring the block here for review. I'd also like to see a higher level of civility from her when queried.
152.91.9.144 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User 152.91.9.144, I'm not sure that I understand why you have created two sections here, or why you reordered the comments, repeatedly, in the previous section, or why you're taking quite such a strident tone. It may be best to present the facts dispassionately and succinctly and let the facts speak for themselves. Since those facts ARE presented, the best thing to do now is stop completely,. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

All admin actions can be reverted, if she makes the majority of blocks without error, then theres nothing to be reviewed. semper fi — Moe 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do think pschemp is rather slap happy with blocks!--Light current 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cant agree! Any erroneous block action should be investigated with vigour! And punished harshly if if proven--Light current 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous blocks were reverted and apologised for. Nothing to discuss. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Samsara. Nothing on Wikipedia is used for punishment and that only make looks you look like a troll by suggesting that kind of thing. semper fi — Moe 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not imply (or even hint/suggest) that I'm a troll. I find that GROSSLY OFFENSIVE In fact its more offensive than you could possibly imagine! Thanks! 8-)--Light current 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. semper fi — Moe 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Light, you are sometimes productive. However, right now obsessing over a block from 3 months ago is unproductive and comes across as trollish. JoshuaZ 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Im always productive! Its just that it may not appear that way to everyone at all times 8-)--Light current 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh good god. The NYscholar block was reveiwed here and agreed with by 2 additional admins. The week was shortened to 48 hours. The anons got 48 hours because it was one guy hopping IPs to make the same vanadalism edit. pschemp | talk 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins, as the enforcers of good behaviour, should themsevles be seen to be whiter than white. Thats why I could never pretend to be one!--Light current 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked you three months ago for incivilty and I see you still can't let it go. pschemp | talk 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt particularly referring to you. But if the cap fits....--Light current 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just let it go LC. semper fi — Moe 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No! I think excessive admin actions should be scrutinised unless apologies are forthcoming for mistakes--Light current 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking you wasn't a mistake. That also was reviewed by at least 4 other admins who agreed with it. pschemp | talk 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah whatever your friends say must be OK! 8-) --Light current 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Internet is serious business. </sarcasm> Danny Lilithborne 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I encounter serial vandalism from ip hoppers, the pattern is fairly easy to spot, I block on sight after the first few ips have done the circuit and then add a block summary Serial vandalism to a small group of articles, no warning required so other admins get the picture of what's going on, unless others suggest this is wrong, I'm continuing to do so and I'd suggest pschemp does likewise. --Alf ^melmac 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the suggestion Alf. pschemp | talk 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, adding a comment to the block log entry such "see my blocking log" or "see today's history of (name of article)" might also allow a concerned editor or a sysop doing an unblock review to see how the block falls into the bigger picture in these IP-hopping type situations. Newyorkbrad 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sadly in this case the "concerned editor" was well aware of the bigger picture, but he just didn't agree with me. Though we had a nice civilised discussion on my talk page about it, and worked things out eventually. pschemp | talk 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vicious vandal User:Squek

Can someone ban this user sharpish.--Zleitzen 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur, this is a vandal only account. Doc Tropics 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Has now been blocked indef. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. See also the above section about this user. Two edit conflicts to post this.... --Rory096 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone put in for an IP check at RFCU? Newyorkbrad 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See No 69 above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jghfutikdpe3 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email), same user, SqueakBox 01:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please review this MfD?

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BricksFromEurope/Corny Medieval Costume. Probably an attack page against a teen identified by real name and photograph, though possibly just an in-joke among friends, but the page creator is blocked for vandalism so we can't ask him, nor would I trust his answer. Prod has been removed twice, but if this is what I fear it might be, it shouldn't stick around for 5 days. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

speedy speedy speedy -- I somehow didn't see this on my talk page when I agreed to userfy [61]. (image is gone, see image name) *sigh* Dina 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Lyfe Tyme

I don't have much time to look into this user right now, but could another admin take a look at Lyfe Tyme (talk · contribs)? The user's contributions seem to be a tangled web of self-promotional articles for rap labels and rap artists that don't appear to be notable. I would investigate this myself but I'm tied up with a few other things in real life tonight. Thanks, Metros232 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Talk page!

3RR on Talk page of Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi by Khoikhoi. --Striver 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Report to WP:AN/3RR. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway only three reverts, not four Alex Bakharev 04:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Whedonette provoking users on a MfD

See related AN/I issue.

User:Whedonette, in my opinion, is being sarcastic and provoking users into heated conversations on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AtionSong/World's_Longest_Poem_(second_nomination). Examples include [62], [63], and [64]. I am getting annoyed with her sarcasm and I'm sure other users are too. Yuser31415^@? 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

<disclaimer>I'm involved in the discussion, arguing generally the same point of view as Whedonette.</disclaimer>
Not to take sides with either Whedonette or Yuser31415, I'll just say that a) sarcasm is hardly the type of thing that needs to be resolved here, or at all; and b) that if anything, Whedonette is the one who could be making a complaint here regarding borderline incivility. However, I really don't see any situation at all that needs intervention, but you're free to look and make your own decision. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Yuser31415.--SUIT 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

<Same disclaimer as Doug> Getting annoyed by one's sarcasm is not really an issue that requires admin intervention, is it? And the point of an MfD is to generate debate. riana_dzasta 04:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. User:Elaragirl has summed up my frustrations extremely well, here. Yuser31415^@? 04:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my frustrations were listed due to Whedonette asking for my opinion. I'm a sarcastic person myself, so the posting (which is back and forth on both of our talk pages) should be taken in toto and not out of context.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that being intensely sarcastic and aggressive is not something for Admins to concern themselves over. But as my previous section says, there is something deeply suspicious about someone who knows so much about Wikipedia and its policies that from Day 1 they MfDed everything they didn't like. I was here three months before I knew enough to AfD something, let alone how to dispute the nuances of policy. This person should not know so much so soon. Also, her responses to allegations to sockpuppetry are all "This is the only account I edit under" - that would make sense if she has been blocked in a previous one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of User:Cute 1 4 u

I would like to get some feedback on the possibility of User:PumpkinPie being a sockpuppet of User:Cute 1 4 u. As you can see by PP's talk page, the user has been welcomed by the other sockpuppet User:Pumpkin Pie (note the space and lack of space in the two usernames)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think it matters, the editor only had one edit and that was during July. semper fi — Moe 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But it might be helpful if we block every opportunity for Cute 1 4 u to evade her block.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Preform

Could someone block user User:Preform - a confirmed sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. I already added the tag on the page. --Zleitzen 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Preform came onto the unblock-en mailing list to admit that he's MagicKirin. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Community ban for ParadoxTom

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Community_ban_for_ParadoxTom for the earlier discussion. In October I proposed a community ban for this editor who obsessively edits wars at Jews for Jesus and is uncivil (see the original post for details). Two other admins agreed to a ban and two more decided to give him one more chance at mediation, and implement the ban if he broke 1RR another time. Since then, mediation has failed, and he has not only broken 1RR multiple times, he received his second 3RR block in that time today. I have implemented the ban and put it up for review. Dmcdevit·t 05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support block. Ral315 (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He has clearly exhausted the community's patience as indicated by this. Endorse the block. --Srikeit 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Samir धर्म 05:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support as well. It makes perfect sense to ban someone who clearly can't work within our framework and refuses to respect Wikipedia policy. Khoikhoi 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support, inflammatory editor editing from a single-purpose account at a controversial article who has been given every chance to abide by policy and yet refuses. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Both tragic and amusing at the same time! Support. Grandmasterka 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse is this a record number of 3RR blocks for the same article? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

With 9 blocks on Jews for Jesus, I think he either equals or is just beaten by Lou franklin, with at least 9 blocks for 3RR on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, depending on how you count. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

bye bye, come back later when you can edit constructively (note: that is slang for "endorse").⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. He has said many times that he has no intention other than to edit the J4J article. Alphachimp 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse obviously. This kind of crap we do not need. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Anyone so incorrigible that admins stop even bothering to explain what he's being blocked for (see William's most recent blocks) isn't worth our time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rober Browning article has been vandalised.

its protected so could someone clean up the mess please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonW11 (talk • contribs)

Re Robert Browning - which mess ? I see no obvious problem --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Username

User:BITE DACIER doesn't seem to be a vandal, so I've explained to him that the block he'll receive isn't due to his actions, and that he can, and should, create a new account. Could someone block him please? Thanks. yandman 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indef block needed

See this. Imagine you are the boy he is talking about. WAS 4.250 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people are sick. Blocked as well. Moriori 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indef block of Starblindy

Starblindy's indef block seems completly uncalled for as a result of his good contributions and nice personal comments and attitudes. Since his formation he has been a useful contributor and created 2 useful and well sourced articles. His block seems to be a rush reaction from him posting a message questioning the blocking of one user. Since that he has been considered immediatly to be a sockpuppet with no real evidence. Starblindy indef block should be reconsidered as to loose such a user would be a great upset to the wikipedia community. --87.74.17.152 09:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize I mis-read an article I think this is the wrong place to discuss matters remove it at will, if fact.
• His name is too similar to User:Starblind. He should at least considering his username. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• May I suggest: User:Starblinder,User:Starblindee, or my favorite; User:AAAAAAAAAAAAH!-That Damn Star Blinded Me! 69.222.174.9 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Calculus Student

I'm a little concerned that Calculus Student (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at best a gimmick/joke account and at worst an attack account. User talk:Calculus Student appears to have been intended as a sort of free message board for the sharing of "Chuck Norris-type" stories between the students of a professor who is referred to by nickname in the text. The account in question has one edit that is not to its own talk page, a borderline vandalism edit of an article space talk page, and it appears several other IPs have contributed silly stories about the same professor to Calculus Student's talk page. Most of these anecdotes aren't necessarily defamatory, but it nonetheless looks like free web hosting with the sole purpose of posting nonsense about a teacher, and the account does not appear interested in making constructive edits.
It seems deletion and protection might be a good idea to prevent possible attack content and misuse of the site via WP:NOT#BLOG. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef, and user/user talk pages deleted. I've watchlisted them; I decided to forgo the protection for now, in case he/she wants to return and make constructive edits. Looks like the students involved are from Gulf Coast High School. --Slowking Man 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dormant role accounts

Well, it's that time of the year again... there are some accounts that remain unused for months, but when a certain specific issue comes up they suddenly return, make a dozen arbitrary edits and start advocating this issue. Of course we routinely discount new accounts on grounds of sockpuppetry, but these tend to slip between the bars since the account is up to several years old, it just so happens that it only edits when the issue comes up (see DRV for examples). What would be a reasonable reaction to such an account? (Radiant) 14:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User Duja's unacceptable behavior

User Duja is putting up the article List of Serb war criminals for deletion. I wrote the article and it simply lists notorious people, members of serb army, who commited horrible attrocities during the wars on the Balkans. I feel like that user Duja want's, in some way, to hide these crimes and even perhaps deny them by constantly putting up, a totally fundamental and true article, for deletion. Please intervene with this problem, this sort of things make wikipedia a sorrowful place which really hurts to see. Greetings Ancient Land of Bosoni 14:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been tagging a lot of the articles intended to be listed on that page as non-notable Bios, and several have been deleted already. So it would seeem there is justification for having it's deletion open for discussion. And removing the AfD tag is vandalism on your part. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with sending the list to AfD. The list does not have even a single reference. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the AfD debate if anyone wants to see what other editors are saying regarding the deletion. →Bobby← 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the purpose of AFD - to discuss whether the article should be here or not - simply posting it for deletion is not acting out of line, it is within the rules of the site. Looking at his nomination rationale and the article itself, it does indeed warrant such a discussion. It has pointed me at a series of very badly written and POV articles, many in violation of WP:BLP.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancient_Land_of_Bosoni (talk · contribs) has now vandalised the article to make his WP:POINT and is making somewhat uncivil and accusatory posts. (added - and is also canvassing for votes) --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

More Personal Attacks from User:Miracleimpulse

User:Miracleimpulse has once again claimed that I and other editors are "Industry Spin Doctors" or in some way being compensated to edit the Sweetest Day article, including a claim that my extensive edit history and involvement in other edits is some sort of smoke screen to hide my true purpose. He's already been blocked by Durova for the same sort of personal attack against me. This comes on the heels of a WP:POINT edit to the main article, then an edit adding tags previously removed by multiple editors and admins, followed by a request for page protection. A few days ago another editor brought up his behavior on AN/I and at the time I felt no action was warrented as he had not been actively editing article or making outlandish personal attacks, but since he's returned to this behavior I think it warrents attention. Just to be absolutely clear, I don't work for the candy, greeting card, or gift industry. I never have. These claims against myself (and the other 2 editors he's attacked in his post, who both have extensive edit histories) is just ludicrous and is in my opinion another example of tendentious editing on User:Miracleimpulse's part.--Isotope23 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I too have been accused of being a spin doctor[65], engaging in vandalism [66], and that I "edit Wikipedia rather relentlessly, almost as if to hide their true purpose in editing Wikipedia." [67]. Funny, becuase I only edited on Sweetest Day yesterday for the first time, and that was to revert the "point" edit noted above. For the record, I have no connection to this Day or the candy industry. Not a dog 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this over to WP:PAIN where I should have posted in in the first place (yes, I'm terrible about reading directions). I've left this here though because there was talk here about a community or topic ban and I have no idea if WP:PAIN is the right place for this discussion; I don't have any experience with that page (or indeed if anyone wants to continue the discussion pertaining to that.--Isotope23 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Simonapro evading block

Simonapro (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

F0xfree (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Editing same articles. --Chondrite 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Simonapro -- Chondrite 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry with additional involved IP's confirmed by checkuser [68] -- Chondrite 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of the State of Indiana page

The abstract for the State of Indiana calls the state "Manifestation of Hicks" and lists several insults to the state. I couldn't figure out how to edit/revert this part of the page, and do not have the time to learn from work.

If someone with knowledge of how to edit the site/block the vandal can fix this, it would be much appreciated.

A thankfull Hoosier

207.250.133.149 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That appears to have been reverted quite some time before your report here (quick service!); in future, for vandal reports, please go to WP:AIV. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

indef blocked user User:Eowbotm active again as User:Eowbotm3

Hi there, just a heads up that an indefinitely banned user User:Eowbotm appears to be active again under another account, User:Eowbotm3. Under this new account, he/she has vandalised the user page of User:Mgoodyear, as seen here. I've removed the vandalism and placed a warning on Eowbotm3's talk page, as well as notified Mgoodyear of what has occurred. My apologies if this was the wrong page to mention all this. Thanks. --Kyoko 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI note also Eowbotm1 (talk · contribs) and Eowbotm4 (talk · contribs) which appear to be related to each other but may or may not be the same person as above --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is continued below under the heading "Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm". --Kyoko 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal of indef ban of User:Sword of Christ

This user got a mission statement on their userpage. It reads the following:

Hi, I'm Sword of Christ and i live in the North of Italy. I am commited to spreading the truth about the Muslim/Jewish/Protestant conspirisy to destroy the Catholic holy places. I am 100% loyal to the Pope. We should launch a new crusade to recapture these places, espeshally the holy city of Jeruselam!!! Those who defy the Pope, and hense God must be punished unless they repent, for there crimes!!!''

They have been editing dispruptibly articles talk pages such as Protestantism, Islam, Jerusalem, WikiProject Judaism, etc.

It is clear that 48h block would not make their attitude or mission statement change. So i suggest we go for an indef one! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Szvest, I understand your inclination to seek a community patience ban on Sword of Christ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but they've only been blocked twice. While never excusing this user's disruptive behavior is it not a bit early to be calling for a patience ban? (→Netscott) 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 48 hours, I've decline his request for unblocking. However, since this is his very first block I would hope that there is some possiblity (however small) of his becoming a productive editor. I recommend we wait 48 hours and if when he returns he is again disruptive we then block him indefinitely. JoshuaZ 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a speedy deletion of this not oriented user page. There should be "NOT" speedy candidates (I don't think there are any). (→Netscott) 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance Scott and Joshua. I've just been more impatient re their userpage and the tendious reverting of the warning on their talk page. That's fine w/ me. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a note, which hopefully will help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents here judging from his/her comments on the talk page I'm not sure this user is going to become a productive editor. Whispering 20:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this user is not being serious. Rather, as people have brought up on the user's talk page, it seems more likely that it is an elaborate "Cute 1 4 u" style prank designed to disrupt wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Problematics edits / Block evasion by Grazon

Background

Grazon was indefinitely blocked on 11 Nov after a checkuser spun-off from RfC/Devilmaycares.

During the RfC, it was asserted that Grazon also editted anonymously as 132.241.246.111 on the bases

• of the nature of the edits — similar preoccupations were exhibited, high similarity of edit summaries, avoidance of discussion
• of Grazon's use of the same ISP (shown, for example, in a remark by Grazon and in an edit to Grazon's User page)

It very much appears that the ISP in question (California State University at Chico) assigns IP numbers with significant persistence. For example, Grazon appears to lay claim to all earlier edits from such an IP number, and all edits from 132.241.246.111 are consistent with use by only one editor.

Problematic edits by 132.241.246.111 after the blocking of Grazon

• coarse edit summary

• tendentious/POV edits:

• anti-Green-Party
• anti-isolationist
• anti-Bush
• erasure of {{fact}} tag, claiming personal knowledge in edit summary
• edit summary disguising extensive tendentious erasures
• anti-Green-Party (2)
• use of “crass” to describe blunt remark by Bush
• disguise of Glick's admission of baiting
• anti-Green-Party (3)
• anti-Green-Party (4)
• gratutitous swipe at Green Party politician (note edit summary)

Possible responses

As noted above, the ISP in question very much appears to assign IP numbers with significant persistence. Possibly this IP number could be blocked until the end of the present term at CSU-Chico, or until the end of the spring term. However, it may be that the editor can easily migrate to a different IP number, and a block past the present term (which will presumably end in less than a month) might obstruct other persons in the subsequent term or terms.

A {{sharedip}} at the top of User talk:132.241.246.111 asserts that “In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact California State University, Chico to report network abuse.” I don't want here to argue whether these edits were “made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia”, but simply to note that warning was given that CSU-Chico might be contacted in response to some sorts of edits.

—12.72.70.76 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest looking at WP:ABREP, as they are in the buissiness of doing such things. 68.39.174.238 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes

I have had to warn this user of both 3RR and vandalism in the last 48 hours. Looking over the user's contributions, it is apparent that this IP has only been used by one person. This person tends to treat Wikipedia as the comments section of a blog, making clever comments about politics: [69]. — coelacan talk — 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block for TheInsider2

I believe it is time for TheInsider2 to receive an indefinite block due to repeated juvenile vandalism of the article on the Washington Redskins as well as articles about other NFL teams (such as an edit to the Pittsburgh Steelers article that merely consisted of garbage about the Steelers beating the Redskins). More importantly, however, after ESkog warned him about it, he then vandalized ESkog's profile (see here: [70]). I expect something similar on my own (non-existent) profile now that I've posted this! 1995hoo 17:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that it appears TheInsider2 is a vandal only account.--Isotope23 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him indef, next time list it in WP:AIV Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm

I thought about taking this to WP:SSP, but decided to try posting here first. Blocked user Eowbotm (talk · contribs) appears to be evading his block with the use of accounts Eowbotm1 (talk · contribs), Eowbotm2 (talk · contribs), Eowbotm3 (talk · contribs), and Eowbotm4 (talk · contribs). All of these accounts have committed vandalism:

Vandalism, POV, and other reverted shenanigans (a lot of which is very subtle)

• Eowbotm1 [71][72][73]
• Eowbotm2 [74][75]
• Eowbotm3 [76][77]
• Eowbotm4 [78](I just now re-added this, is properly cited and should not have been removed) [79][80][81][82]

Evidence incidcating that they're the same accounts (besides the names)

• And an edit indicating that Eowbotm3 is Eowbotm2. [83]
• And edits by Eowbotm3 and Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm, suggesting a link. [84] [85]
• An edit by Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm4, in case more evidence is needed. [86]

I've also found that this user cleared vandalism warnings off his talk pages for Eowbotm1 and Eowbotm4.

Can we get these sockpuppets of a blocked user who has consistently vandalized on his socks blocked as well? And perhaps an IP ban or something to keep him from doing this again? Thanks in advance. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded by me, as one of his victims Mgoodyear 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide denial

A group of Russian users is systematically removing Category:Genocide from the article about Holodomor, a famine engineered by Soviets as a tool of genocide against Ukrainians that took millions of lives and crippled the eastern regions of Ukraine. An organized group ignores official recognition of the events both in Ukraine and internationally and instead engages in playing semantical games, pretends Ukrainians are "politicizing the famine", and backs their believes by a handful of quotes from some scholars who dispute the applicability of the term. --193.219.28.146 19:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Highly offensive and trollish "complaint". Issue is discussed in the article and talk ad naseum. Sources provided, different views presented. User refuses to discuss, runs sterile revert wars, refuses to log in, offends other editors with ethnic characterizations (besides false). The owner of this single use account needs reprimanded and/or warned. --Irpen 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in replying to this personal attack, however I find it very illustrating of the problem

Point of information from an uninvolved party: The second paragraph of the article clearly states that while most contemporary scholars agree that the famine was caused by Soviet policy, it remains disputed whether this constitutes genocide. Therefore it appears that this is simply a content dispute and not a matter for administrator intervention. —Psychonaut 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not simply a content dispute, there is an organized and apparently well entrenched in Wikipedia group that's trying to remove a fact they consider unpleasant for their nation and I gave been banging my head against a wall for the last day to include a crucial, completely obvious and widely recgonized fact in the article so that people reading about genocide can find this articles. Of course people with a political agenda can find publications supporting their point of view, just as the Turks blindly relie on Justin McCarthy (American historian) and they can take other publications and twist to their ends, however the general opinion of the scientific community and international recognition is far more important. --193.219.28.146 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to refute the filers point, I'm an American and I've been reverting the POV edits. And one of the others reverting the filer's POV edits is French. This isn't an organized group, we all just agree that Wikipedia must remain NPOV, as required by NPOV. TheQuandry 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say every one who does this is Russian, just that there is an organized Russian group. It's quite likely that You just got taken for a ride. --193.219.28.146 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There's always a cabal, isn't there? And calling this "not a content dispute" doesn't mean it isn't one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you wrote in response to my post backs up your argument that this is not a content dispute. A content dispute is a content dispute; it makes no difference whether one side of the argument has one proponent or twenty. You should take this to WP:RfM or WP:RfAr, not here. —Psychonaut 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense. So far, any independent international body such as UN failed to recognize the Holodomor as genocide (despite being asked to several times). Until then... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anyone who commented to this thread is Russian. I don't see why so many people need to discuss such preposterous accusations at length. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Russian, no matter what my username would lead people to think, by the way. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying anything like "all Russian are evil", quite to the contrary the vast majority of Russians are really decent people, just like the vast majority of people of any nationality. The problem is that a small but aggressive minority of Russians refuses to accept the crimes committed by their country. Right now, right here a group of Russians is trying to remove the category tag from Holodomor so that people won't find information about the event when they browse the category, this however is only a small organized group and on the Russian Wikipedia which contains a much more representative cross section of the Russian society the article is present in ru:Категория:Геноцид (a permalink to the article before this happens [87]). I'm sure that now that I wrote this here the Russians editing this article here will try to remove it, but I am also confident the administrators there who are more familiar with the subject then people in English speaking countries won't allow this. --193.219.28.146 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're not quite understanding what you're being told. You are in a content dispute. Admins aren't here so they can block people whose edits you dispute. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of English so perhaps I failed to explain this: this isn't a content dispute, the fact that Holodomor was a genocide directed against the Ukrainian nation is widely and unequivocally recognized, the fact that a small group of Russian editors can pull a stunt like presenting it as an open dispute here is caused by the lack of familiarity with the topic in the anglosphere.

It is not "unequivocally recognized". No international body has ever characterized it as genocide. And however much you may prefer your sources, they have their sources, which you can not just dismiss. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

btw browsing through this page I noticed that the people most activly engaging in removing the tag are apparently well known trobule makers.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, and it definitely doesn't mean an admin should use their powers to make a content dispute be resolved on your side. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon (193.219.28.146 - please consider registering), I have to agree with Amarkov that this is the wrong place to bring the issue up. The first place is the article's talk page; if you feel that more neutral editors are needed, there are Wikipedia:Requests for comment; if you feel that certain user(s) are behaving less then optimal and/or you are deadlocked, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is a good way to approach the issue (mediation, perhaps?). Finally, remember that a key policy of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability: if scholars disagree whether the event can be classified as a genocide or not, then this should be noted in the article, and also note our guidelines for categories (at WP:CAT) state that: 'Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.' Perhaps creating a Category:Disputed genocides might solv the problem?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

sure and then you can put every single one in there. --193.219.28.146 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I see the Russian comrades resorted to their favorite trick find a really screwed up nut [88], so they can present themselves as the "liberal Russian" to the West. That's why they keep Ziuganov and Zhyrynovsky in the Duma.

This is a content dispute bordering on personal attacks by the complainant. If you disagree with an editor(s)' edits, use dispute resolution. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tajik's incivility continues

Tajik was banned for 24 hours[89], then for 48 hours for incivility.[90] Now that he is back, he posted a stalking accusation on my talk page[91], with no supporting diffs, because there are none. Please look at my last 500 copyedits[92] and Tajik's[93] and see if there is any evidence that I am following "every step" of Tajik's.[94] False accusations are not civil. KP Botany 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tajik's request was reasonable, and I see no (real) evidence of incivility since he was blocked. Khoikhoi 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, please post the diffs that show I am stalking Tajik, because the request is only reasonable IF I am stalking Tajik, and this accusation, as you should know, requires him to provide some evidence. He provided none. He didn't even attempt to provide any.

And I suspect you are supporting him simply because I have called you to task for protecting pages you have been edit warring in.[95] And posted a comment about that. You are also personally involved in a lot of the edit wars that Tajik participates in, and because you are not neutral to the issue you should not have responded without evidence for your assertions. Like Tajik, you provided nothing. I am NOT stalking Tajik, cannot imagine anything more boring, and there is no evidence for my stalking Tajik, and never will be. He provided none, you as an administrator personally involved in the issue came in here and supported Tajik with no evidence of his stalking me and provided none of your own.

I am not stalking Tajik. If administrator Khoikhoi thinks it is civil for Tajik to falsely accuse me of stalking, then that's a new definition of civil that I'm not familiar with. If administrator Khoikhoki thinks accusations without proof are fine, let's hold this administrator to acting in the future upon my accusations without any evidence.

What the heck, let me make any request without any evidence or anyone else but Tajik ask Khoikhoi without evidence and let's see how far the request goes. I am NOT stalking Tajik.

Here are forty or so of my last edits, just show me where I am stalking User:Tajik, or stop making false accusation.

Administrators making false accusations against editors because of personal prefernces and biases is not appropriate. Isn't there any requirement that administrators at least pretend to be neutral? There should be.

Tajik will do anything to own the Afghanistan article from all other editors on Wikipedia, he should not be aided and abetted in this by a biased administrator who also doesn't bother to support baseless accusations. KP Botany 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[96][97][98][phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bendono&diff=prev&oldid=91204147][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137]

I don't see that you have any high ground here. Where's your evidence that the editor in question is WP:OWNing the Afghanistan article, and where is your evidence that Khoikoi is disagreeing with you because of other disputes? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as to evidence Khoikhoi is disagreeing with me because of other disputes?[138] And, looking at the time Khoikhoi posted and looking at Tajik's talk page[139] it seems Khoikhoi didn't even bother to look and see if there was any evidence that Tajik was being uncivil. So, that is my high ground: there was evidence of Tajik's lack of civility, a comment on his talk page about edit wars, and his comment on mine about my stalking him without any evidence. What exactly is it that Tajik can accuse me of something without any evidence and I don't have the high ground? Why do I have to provide evidence, but Tajik provided none and Khoikhoi provided none, and the existing evidence, Tajik's talk page contradicts what Khoikhoi said? As to Tajik trying to own Afghanistan, just look at its talk page, and the fact is, if he is accusing me of stalking him, I think they're the only edits we have in common for our last 500 or so, my half a dozen edits on Afghanistan, and the same number or so on its talk page. [140]KP Botany 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, if I'm "stalking" him it's because my edits of Afghanistan are not allowed, and if they're not allowed, then it's because Tajik has successfully owned the page by simply accusing me of stalking without any support or evidence or diffs and Khoikhoi supported him without any, either, and in the face of evidence to the contrary. KP Botany 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

KP, you yourself are making a lot of baseless accusations about me. A look at your contributions shows that you have a history of reporting Tajik for everything he does. How were you able to gather all those diffs of him if you claim you weren't stalking him? He asked you to stop, and in a manner that wasn't really incivil at all. You're accusing me of being a biased administrator, but if you yourself want to be unbiased, you should try reporting people besides Tajik for personal attacks, i.e. [141]. Khoikhoi 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it's simply personal bias against me by this administrator. Khoikhoi did not post any "baseless accusations," but rather simply threw out this accusation against me. Repeat: simply personal bias by this administrator against an editor.

And I don't have any idea why Khoikhoi posted the example to Afsharid dynasty, as it's not a page I edit or watch. If Tajik does nothing reportable, I won't be able to report him, but that's not what stalking is, and one doesn't have to stalk Tajik to catch his diffs, simply wait for him to blow up the first time then go to his contributions page--he generally can't stop once he starts. But that's not what stalking is, here is the page, and the policy in a nutshell: WP:Stalk

"Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."

I have never threatened Tajik, I have never nitpicked his good-faith edits, in fact, I have repeatedly complimented him on his good edits, I don't personally attack him, although when he falsely accused me of making substantive edits to Herat when I only made copyedits I got into a spat with him, and I've never posted any personal information about him. And I've seldom edited any of the pages he routinely edits, except for copyedits on probably 2 or 3, and that is what Tajik accused me of "following every step" he makes on Wikipedia. This requires evidence--like my editing his edits. I don't, I didn't, I'm not even interested in them. That's what stalking on Wikipedia is, and that's not anything I've done. I've never edited the page Khoikhoi posted, so it's entirely irrelevant, Khoikhoi hasn'et posted any evidence other than a page I've never edited.

Oh, I do comment to other editors on the Afghanistan article about their negative behaviours, also. User:NisarKand[142], User:Ariana310[143], I have e-mailed other users repeatedly urging civility, and I request users to be more polite, not just Tajik. So, my accusations have basis, I have provided them, I don't report Tajik for everything he does, just some things, and others have reported him too, and his talk page had comments by others already both times Khoikhoi posted, he asked me to stop something I wasn't doing without any proof or evidence I was doing it, and Khoikhoi leaped to his defense, this latest post shows the bias, because it includes accusations that I only report Tajik, well, NisarKand backed down, Ariana310 is trying really hard, and when I reported Tajik, I was certain to include an example and a comment about another user's behaviour at the same time. And the example Khoikhoi gives of me failing to report bad behaviour is of a page I don't watch or edit. KP Botany 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And, neither NisarKand nor Ariana310 started attacking me and making false accusations against me when I asked them to back off the personal accusations. This is what Tajik does for my reporting his lack of civility, he makes false accusations against me. The other editors did not do this, and I was quite a bit harsher with NisarKand, initially, than with Tajik. KP Botany 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to question your good faith...And I hate to say it, but from the looks of things, you've been on a personal vendetta against User:Tajik, which may fall within the definition of WP:Stalking. ­Inevitably, such obsession with the other users contributes to an unproductive and hostile environment in Wikipedia, which is not something you want when a building an encyclopedia. Looking at your accusations toward Khoikhoi, I must say you are also in breach of WP:Civility. --Mardavich 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of what? What evidence do you have to show that I have been on a personal vendetta against Tajik? Where is the evidence? Why can't anyone provide evidence of my stalking? I don't even edit the same pages as he does, and he provided NO Evidence, simply threw out an accusation and everyone jumps to his defence, with NO EVIDENCE. Please show the evidence. Or stop accusing me. How is it bad faith on my part to ask for evidence when I've been accused of something? Tajik provided NONE. You provided NONE. Khoikhoi provided NONE and gave a page I don't even know about, that I'd never edited.

Is this Wikipedia policy? Anyone can accuse someone of anything, without ANY evidence and adminstrators gang up to make sure it sticks? What is going on here?

What stalking? What vendetta? Tajik's the one with the vendetta, but, it seems that the method on Wikipedia is to not provide evidence, not provide diffs. KP Botany 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Community block for Supreme Cmdr

Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) has been blocked five times for revert-warring on Derek Smart. The last block was for ten days, ending 25 November; today Supreme Cmdr is revert-warring on Talk:Derek Smart again. In addition, he seems to be unable to remain civil and avoid personal attacks as any random sample of his contributions will prove. --Ideogram 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Supreme Cmdr is Derek Smart's screenname/forum name, and that this is likely him (if the contributions are pro-derek). Derek smart is also well known, perhaps even notorious in the press, for his incivility and personal attacks against people on his forums; wikipedia shouldn't be a stretch. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I must support a community block for him. I blocked him about a month back for similar behavior and it seems he has no intention of changing. Cowman109^Talk 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A thought, what about a month or longer ban from Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) related articles? (→Netscott) 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be the only page the user edits, so a community ban from only the page would have the same effect. Cowman109^Talk 21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you were to do that, you'd have to ban him as well from articles about the games he created (Battlecruiser series, et al), because he'd likely take his aggression out there. That's assuming he even obeyed the ban: Smart isn't known for doing that. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. I support banning him from all Derek Smart related articles. --InShaneee 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think such a ban would be a good faith gesture rather than an outright Wiki wide ban. I suspect that such an article based banning may not matter in the long run though. (→Netscott) 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Little note, Derek Smart sues anyone and everyone who disagrees with him in any way. So if he gets blocked, and it really is him, he'll probably throw around some legal threats somewhere. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't happen

69.169.151.61 (talk · contribs) has vandalised at least 21 22 times (numerous times past test4) and is still not blocked. Then my report on AIV was deleted for some strange reason (and not because it has been dealt with - the logs confirm the person is still unblocked). Where are the admins? Quite a backlog @ AIV. Mikker ^(...) 21:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it by mistake. I was removing a blocked IP when I realized I had removed the wrong one. I then made the bad mistake of reverting rather than simply retyping the right unblocked one back in and removing the wrong blocked one. My apologies. -WarthogDemon 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Cowman109^Talk 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts later) That's ok, WarthogDemon. User:Cowman109 has now blocked the ip so the issue has been dealt with. Mikker ^(...) 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD help

Ok, I don't know what I did, but my browser is attacking my AFD submission. I've tried to submit 3D Global Solutions for AFD, and every time it malforms, and everytime I try to fix it, it just messes up even worse for some reason. Can someone help me fix this? I don't know what's wrong with my browser, I've used this tool for auto-nominating AFD's for a year now, and then bam, I update OS X and suddenly it doesn't like me anymore. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I fixed it on another computer. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On this note, I had the same problem with 3 nominations today, using (I guess) the same tool. Coincidence? I will investigate further.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:69.141.208.92 keeps removing information in Delirious (wrestler)

User:69.141.208.92 (Talk, Contribs) keeps removing the real name of Delirious (wrestler). He has done this now ten times, always without an edit summary or explanation for his actions. I have added warnings into his talk page to no effect. ↪Lakes (Talk) 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as he only does it once a day, just revert him, but only if you can't get him to come to discussion or explain his reasoning (otherwise it's edit warring). But I would say, if he continues to not provide explanation, just put it back up. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin User:Tom harrison

Since the talk page of User:Tom harrison left me in the dark [144][145], I have to post this here. User:Tom harrison just unilaterally banned me from the article far right for one week. I'm not sure what went wrong here. User:Tom harrison believes this be in line with a previous Arbcom decision (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible), but there seems to be nothing in that arbitration's decision that could warrant an article ban here. I have not edit warred, which is what the arbcom findings and decision were about (Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore)). Furthermore, shouldn't possible enforcement of arbcom decisions take place at WP:AE? Intangible 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Procedure-wise things seem to have been done properly, as the terms of your probation does indeed state that you are placed on Probation and that you may be banned from any article or sets of articles for disruptive edits. A discussion here would be good concerning the article ban, though, as, while it is only for a week, at a glance I cannot find extensive editing or disruption on far right by you. Some clarification by Tom harrison would be helpful. Cowman109^Talk 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't looked into the actual situation at Far right, but it looks like other people have. From reading the arbcom decision, such a ban is entirely in line if you've been disruptively editing. Tom Harrison seems to have explained himself at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible#Log_of_blocks_and_bans which is the right place- he even linked to discussion of the issue. The arbcom decision specifically says "He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles for disruptive edits." Also I object to your description of the ban as "unilateral"- he posted his suggestion for others to review a day before taking any action. I'm not sure I see your cause for complaint here. I also note that you're objecting to various side-issues here, rather than saying you were not being disruptive. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but you seem like you're being a bit dense to me. Friday (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just putting [146] a POV tag to an article is disruptive, when you explain your point on an article's talk page [147][148] using reputable sources? I had a similar discussion at the far left article [149][150], but somehow that is is not contested by anyone? Intangible 22:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

An article ban under a probation must be for good cause. Intangible has edited the article a couple of times and gone to the talk page to explain his edits; it does seem a bit much to describe it as disruptive. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This POV list was absent from the article for almost five months [151], and at present doesn't even provide for any context. Intangible 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just an arbitrary, capricious, and unilateral ban, because I was bored and looking for trouble. I saw Intangible quietly walking along, minding his own business; chuckling evily to myself, without warning I sprang from my lair and knocked him on the head, for no reason. See the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Need review of endless ongoing situation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So because User:Cberlet claims something, you are just going to ban me for a week? What specific edit is causing trouble here? Intangible 00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not because he claimed it, but because after checking I found it to be true, and after inviting comment I didn't hear any persuasive counter-arguments. If you won't read what I wrote on the noticeboard, I see reason to repeat it here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I read your response before commenting on your user page. The only other admin comment was from User:Thatcher131, saying that he won't comment anymore because of something User:Cberlet wrote [152]. I have always abided by the terms of my probation, namely to refrain from edit warring. Again, what specific edit is disruptive? What Wikipedia policy is being violated? There is a content dispute, and that's why I put a POV to an article, and put forth an argument on the article's talk page based on reputable third party sources. This is not a crime, and I should not be banned for that, certainly not when no counter-arguments has been provided by other Wikipedia editors, not even User:Cberlet. Intangible 01:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also referred readers to my extensive comments at Talk:Far Right and WP:AE. For example, I said In other words, describe the fact that some pundits characterize a party as "Far-right"{fact} while other pundits or the party dispute it{fact}; don't pretend the characterization doesn't exist. [153] I noted that the original list of "parties considered Far Right" looked like some editor's opinion, because it had no sources and many of the parties were not called Far Right in their own main articles. I suggested rebuilding the list using sources who characterize the party as Far Right, or by making sure that the party is labeled Far Right (with sources) in its main article.[154] I then said If Intangible disputes editors' characterizations of far right groups, make sure you are quoting reliable sources rather than your own opinions. If he removes them then, it may constitute disruption. [155] Remember that NPOV does not mean articles should be neutered of all points of view, merely that all significant points of view should be included, and the reader should not feel that the article is taking sides. [156] It is clear that you won't let the issue go even though the list is almost entirely sourced, and the article ban is appropriate.

I have other issues with Cberlet's conduct, but this is not the place for it, and I do not agree with every complaint he has made about you. In this case, if reliable and notable sources (media, politicians, political scientists) decide to call a party "Far Right," "Far Left," or even "Stinky cheese", then we can report that as long as it is clear we are reporting the views of others with sources. If you do not accept this and continue to fight the issue after the 5 day ban expires, it will probably be extended. Thatcher131 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Two points. There is no context in the far right article. Why is the Reform Party of Canada called "far right" by Ignazi? One does not obtain the information from the article, which makes it a bad article, since Wikipedia articles all should be stand-alone. But, I guess, next time I'll put a tag to the article and mention this point on the talk page I'm gonna be banned even more. So this is all simply mute. The next point, is also related to the first one. If all significant points of view are to be mentioned in an article, they should at least provide for some context. The introduction of an article is unlikely to be place to provide for such a context. What help is a newspaper or scholarly article labelling a party "far right," when that newspaper does not provide for any reason thereto? This is simply dishonest referencing, and not worthy of a serious encyclopedia that Wikipedia tries to be. Intangible 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As many may be aware this user has been repeatedly blocked and has an RfC filed about his behavior- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel575. Now, in response to my comment here he has made this edit which while not a death threat per se is pretty close to one and says as such that he has no intention of cooperating with other editors. We may want to consider the community ban. My patience at least is exhausted. JoshuaZ 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to make an indef ban I'm not completely convinced be under the death threat criterion. It is not rare among charedim to make comments of the form "if the meshiach arrive then we would _" where _ can range from executions to animal sacrifices to whipping Jews who charge each other interest. Unless we think that the arrival of meshiach is eminent this isn't a threat in the traditional sense. It amounts to almost saying "if God came down and gave me permission to kill these people I'd do it gladly (but would never do so otherwise)" which isn't really a death threat. Still the comment is bad enough that I would think together with Daniel's earlier comments this merits a ban under exhausting community patience. JoshuaZ 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with the above. It is, indeed, rare among chareidim to make statements like that to non-Jews, or to secular Jews. Charedim might talk amongst themselves theoretically about the control and role of the Sanhedrin in the messianic era, but it is seriously in bad form to threaten anybody in quite the way Daniel has done.--Meshulam 23:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is despicable!!!!!! Is somebody going to do something about Daniel575???? MetsFan76 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry JoshuaZ....I just realized you posted this already right before I did. MetsFan76 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Combinging section for convenience). JoshuaZ 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks JoshuaZ! MetsFan76 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicted four times) I think that's close enough to a death threat to warrant a block or ban for it. --Coredesat 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support an indefinite ban. MetsFan76 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading the situation, I don't think it fits the description of "death threats" that would warrant banning. It IS an incredibly incivil comment, however, and appropriate action should be taken (perhaps a mid- to long-term block). --Coredesat 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on this single edit, I blocked him for one week for inappropriately hostile remarks. I felt this one edit by itself was enough to warrant serious consequences. Not familiar with his previous history- perhaps indefinite is appropriate. No objection to anyone changing the duration. Friday (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Volunteering to kill Messianics sounds pretty threatening to me. MetsFan76 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a threat in the more standard sense of the word, see my above comment. JoshuaZ 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not strictly a threat, but it's still way over the line of what's appropriate. Other recent edits look to me in a similiar vein. Friday (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your words Joshua, a threat is a threat regardless of the religion. Saying that he would gladly kill someone else is a threat. I don't think your description would hold up in a court of law if he did attempt something like that. MetsFan76 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there have been precedents in some jurisdictions that comments like this one aren't treated the same way as conventional death threats. In any event, the real question is whether this type has the same comment as standard death threats. I'm not convinced it does. At this point, I'd not object to a community ban for exhaustion of patience but I don't think this dif constitutes a death threat. JoshuaZ 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether what he says constitutes a standard death threat or not does not make it right. It is deplorable!! I would not be surprised if after his ban is up, he will continue his actions. MetsFan76 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important in encyclopedias, in decision making and in teaching someone what they did wrong to clearly distinguish between related yet different concepts. Hostility (shown by talking about killing) is what was done wrong. It was not a death threat. WAS 4.250 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok fine...it wasn't a death threat, but it was still uncalled for. MetsFan76 00:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, I would say that looked like a death threat to me. Saying someone deserves death, and volunteering to bring about the death yourself is both racist and wrong. But I can (vaguely) understand if you guys want to have leniency (although the argument "the guy belongs to a certain Jewish sect so death threats are OK doesn't fly with me"). But in view of recent fracas with the {{NotJewish}} template, this has gone from ridiculous to sublime. His "opponent", who apparently has no civility either, was just indef'ed for ridiculous 3RR violation. I would say 2 weeks would at least be appropriate, in view of this awful comment and other nonsense with the template. But, as I said, I don't see how that could be construed as anything other than a bigoted death threat, orthodox Jewish or no. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• the issue brought up was charedi not Orthodox. JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Patstuart, I'm glad to read your refreshing words. If this does have to do with being in a certain sect, then that DEFINITELY does not fly with me either. Personally, I think an indef for Daniel575 would be more appropriate until he realizes his actions are wrong. MetsFan76 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that the user has become completely uncivil in all manner: [157],[158], [159] (said after he removed the said section). He also gave another death-like threat right before these statements: [160].. A look at his contributions reveals as much. Joshua, I know you agree with some of his points, but this is out of totally out of bounds, and I don't see how a simple one-week block is justified, considering past behavior. Only a longer block may get him to consider that disruption, rudeness, and death threats are totally wrong. Statements like Thank G-d the guy is dead and rotting, and if he weren't dead, I would kill him myself, with my own bare hands. I would tie his hands and feet, and beat him until he died. Get it? Don't you dare telling me such things. And don't you are ever calling yourself a Jew or any of your whole heretical Christian sect by any name which includes the word 'Judaism'. are so out of bounds as to constitute banning. If this kind of thing were said about another other race or religion, would it not get the ban-hammer? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, Pat, you don't need to convince me. Please note that I brought the matter up here at ANI saying that I thought his comments merited a ban. The only aspect I was pointing out was that his attack on my page was not a death threat as such (and Coredesat agrees see above). They are bannable comments but we should be clear in what context we are banning him under. JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry. I didn't mean to come across too harshly. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement by the user, which in part reads: "I love attacking Messianics. They should all be killed ... I volunteer to carry out the executions. What do you think it will be, decapitation or stoning?" is utterly unacceptable. I up'd the block to indefinite. El_C 02:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you El C.......I glad you realize that threats like this unacceptable. MetsFan76 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this indef block. Daniel has gone too far too often. He refused to respond to an editor recently because the latter was Muslim, and there are frequent comments about how this or that editor is a non-Jew. It's too much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the block as well. All previous attempts at changing his behavior through RFCs were met with indifference by Daniel, so it seems this is the only way. Cowman109^Talk 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. Khoikhoi 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Motorola RAZR V3

Initially there had been a long list of external links for modding the motorola razr V3, they were removed citing spam. Upon removal the vandalism started (inserting the links more than once in the page). The page was semiprotected and the vandalism stopped until Pacificamark started readding the list despite constant spam warnings and discussion on the talk page. Upon doing research for my girlfriend I went back to the first edit that he made and discovered that he added his own motorola modding link (www.hackthev3.com) When doing a google search for just "Pacificamark" the first link to pop up is hackthev3.com and when doing a little more investigating he says he's the owner of the site itself [161] (click on "display images" if the signature doesn't appear initially). I beleive there is a conflict of interests here, he is promoting his own site which is against WP:SPAM. I also suspect that he was adding the links from the initial IPs (one of which was banned for spamming).--TexasDex 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. This account seems to be used for nothing other than spamming. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

title changed by request

I received this threat message from user:Steel [162] if I was to remove violence statistics. Arrest statistics were removed from another article [163] so I don't see why I should be blocked for doing the same. --Mihai cartoaje 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside your mind-boggling comparison of African American to Schizophrenia, that edit was not a "threat", but a strongly worded reminder that we edit collaboratively here. Try making whatever point you have to make through dialogue with other editors, instead of writing complaints with inflammatory section headings here. Jkelly 23:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

whatever point you have to make? What are you referring to?

I have had dialogue with other editors. I think that I am the one who has written the most comments on the talk page.

I don't understand: I am the one who has discussed the most. Why should I not be allowed to edit the article? --Mihai cartoaje 00:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a "loudest mouth" contest. The person with the most edits does not "win". You were given a reminder to edit nicely. Deal with it.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, can I be blocked for removing violence statistics or not? --Mihai cartoaje 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can if it's against an overwhelming consensus, as is the case here. -- Steel 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Users can vote multiple times by creating multiple accounts. --Mihai cartoaje 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They can, but there is no reason to believe that they are. Writing lots of comments does not make you right, and people who disagree sockpuppets. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user:Nehwyn was created on 14 September and placed a level-4 warning on another talk page less than 2 weeks later. How can a 2-week old account know whether another account shall be blocked? There can be others, too.--Mihai cartoaje 08:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Stretchier than Laffy Taffy, but irrelevant regardless. Don't be disruptive just to make a point. Danny Lilithborne 08:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not been disruptive. What is written about me on the talk page is not true. --Mihai cartoaje 09:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator User:Bosna 101

I've just discovered that Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded dozens of images with missing or false source and copyright licensing information (see upload log). He has been repeatedly warned about this behaviour (see User talk:Bosna 101), and the vast majority of his images have been deleted or are to be deleted for copyright violation. I recommend that this user be blocked indefinitely until he confirms on his talk page that he has read and understood the copyvio warnings posted there, and has agreed not to upload further images with false or missing source/copyright information. A short-term block is inappropriate because this user seems to contribute to Wikipedia only occasionally. —Psychonaut 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick review shows that this users edits divide into: uploading of unsourced images; linking unsourced images; changing internal to external links; not much else. I have blocked them. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Significantly, the user continued to upload problematic images long after he started receiving warnings. I think a block is appropriate until the user can demonstrate that they understand the requirements with respect to images. --bainer (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, edit warring, WP:POINT violations by User:71.219.142.172

71.219.142.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disrupting several articles due to a dislike of Chaos magic, apparently. Multiple placements and re-placement of {prod} tag, followed by incomplete nominations for deletion. He requests citations, then reverts the article when citations are provided. Has been listed on the vandalism page already by 999 but no action has been taken. Has also repeatedly removed content from articles. —Hanuman Das 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has also shown up under the IP addresses of 71.219.150.102 and 71.219.142.137. --Tsuzuki26 04:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Block User:24.137.194.227

For repeated vandalsim of Dylan and Cole Sprouse. I have warned him and he still presists on vandalising the page. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Numerous anon sockpuppets who edited the page Wikipedia:Village pump (news)

An anon user is IP-drifting and adding some rediculous attack stuff to the page Wikipedia:Village pump (news) about certain wikipedia users fellating the George W. Bush. See the page history for a full report. Also, the page needs a semiprotect for the next few hours, as this vandalism is ongoing and still happening. I would expect a this list of IP address to be longer by the time an admin gets to it. Here is a list of the IP's the anon has used.:

• User:68.30.59.224
• User:68.30.213.53
• User:68.30.22.78
• User:68.30.82.0
• User:70.8.38.190
• User:70.8.138.11
• User:68.30.65.203

Hope this was of some help. We do need a quick semiprotect to end this fast as well. --Jayron32 04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See above: #Block review requested. It seems to have stopped for now, but expect the user back. Don't bother to semi-protect, because they will just move on to another VP page, the Help Desk, User talk pages, this page, or something else. --Aude (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice the user has returned. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that anyone would be so bored that they would bother posting that kind of nonsense.--MONGO 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should have directed him to Uncyclopedia --Vercalos 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User has moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Not sure what to do with this. They will probably keep moving between pages and IP's until they get tired and go to bed. Just keep semi-protecting and blocking the IP's until he goes away. --Jayron32 04:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot is the person doing it. All from Chicago area. The sprint ones are the moving ones. Blocking the Comcast IP 67.167.7.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) or complaining to Illinois Century Networks for 209.175.170.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might be more effective. The irony is that it ICN is a government agency. Is the vandal a government agent? Only The Shadow knows. Well, maybe MONGO with his vast intelligence network and database and the vast secret resources he has being the head of Operation Gladio knows too. --Tbeatty 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, I still have the two cups, but the budget has been cut and they won't send me a replacement for the broken string.--MONGO 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They will be back tomorrow. This has been going on for several days. I'm looking into this further. --Aude (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked 70.8.0.0/16 and 68.30.0.0/16 for 1 hour, anon-only / no account creation. Dragons flight 05:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is also being pursued, per WP:ABUSE. Range-block is a good temporary measure. --Aude (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional range-block is needed. He showed up again after 1-hour block at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Jayron32 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Request roll-back - Anon spamming multiple links for same pharmacutical company

User:203.36.224.162 has added to multiple articles on drugs external links to GlaxoSmithKlein Australia webpages for the drug. Yet all the articles already contain one link to GSK's description of their product, namely their American website fork. We surely do not need to link to every webfork page GSK maintains for each country across the world? (No I'm not being pro-US here, as a British citizen I feel no desire nor need to add additional links to GSK's UK fork too) Adding such multiple links seems inappropriate and spamming (unless of course the regulatiom or licensing in one country for a particular drug is notably different).

Can an admin consider rolling back these additions as wikipedia is not a directories listings ? David Ruben ^Talk 05:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a blatant example of spamming. I've reverted the anon & blocked him/her for 48 hours. Khoikhoi 05:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was quick - thank you :-) David Ruben ^Talk 05:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! You might want to double-check to see if I missed any. Khoikhoi 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sword of Christ - redux

I just indef blocked Sword of Christ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is clear he intends to be disruptive on religion related articles (see his blocklog) and his username is a clear violation of username policy, especially in light of his edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support that block. Very POV pushing if you ask me. Viridae^Talk 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. Mgm, you've just unblocked the account to change duration to indef but i still don't see any indef block! - Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this before, on the block log for Mil Falcon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (where nufy8 unblocked to reblock, and even though they reblocked and I reblocked nothing further has shown up). Sometimes when you unblock and reblock quickly the block log gets bunged up and never shows any further blocks. Its possible too that MGM forgot to reblock, but that account hasn't posted to anything but their talk page after the block. Syrthiss 12:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

indeed Syrthiss 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Thanks Syrthiss. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Wigan - Language

There is an ongoing and very unpleasant discussion by several editors (normally using IP addresses not name). Poor attitude a lack of WP:AGF and language has been used. Comments are rarely signed. A request to moderate has been ignored. Regan123 12:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Heated dispute could do with additional eyes

I blocked Fys (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) this morning for edit-warring on Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as being disruptive by serially reporting as vandalism the reversion of his addition of a blog-sourced comment. Whether or not it's valid is pretty much irrelevant, the default is to exclude problematic content unless there is consensus to include, especially on a WP:LIVING article. Anyway, he's Wikilawyering away like a good 'un, and I am not much disposed to discuss it further with him. Some independent input from others on his Talk would be appreciated, as would a review of his unblock request by an admin other than the two of us who are already active there. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support Guy's block, even though I was about to give him another chance on the 3RR (having made absoloutely sure he knew about the rule). I support the block because of: the 3RR violation, the incivility (see talk page) and the disruption (serial reports to aiv, the constant arguing, editing/deleting guy's comments if he doesn't like them. I would welcome the input from other admins however, I just gave up trying to get him to calm down/see reason, there appears to be no point - at least at this stage. Viridae^Talk 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• The dispute is over this edit. Detoxification (talk · contribs) has removed the text a number of times, Fys (talk · contribs) has replaced it. At first glance, both users are in violation of the 3RR. Fys claims that this doesn't apply since the removal is vandalism. However, the information is negative in tone, and sourced in a blog; Detox therefore claims it is in violation of BLP. They have discussed this on Fys's talk page, where Detox explains why the information is improper, and Fys asserts that "Until the site is removed from the internet, the reference stays." Without knowing anything further of the circumstances, it seems obvious to me that this removal is not simple vandalism, and that Fys was properly blocked for revert warring. (Radiant) 13:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a clear violation of 3RR. The block is justified. However, the edit warring was about vandalism in fact. User:Detoxification was removing sourced content. The section in question is based on two sources and not solely on the blog link. I've just read the timesonline's article A strange case of espionage and warfare inside the commuter belt which is referenced on the section. Maybe he was just furious that no one sees teh removal of the sourced content as vandalism. So i don't totally agree w/ you guys about Fys being that dispruptive and uncivil this time. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the attempts by Detoxification to talk about the issue I took it as a content dispute - wether that blog was appropriate to be mentioned in the article and not vandalism. Viridae^Talk 13:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And Fys has without question been an editor for long enough to know this even if it hadn't been pointed out to him several times. If this is a significant criticism then there will be a better source than a political attack blog. Blogs with articles describing the subject as a "dipstick" are not, I'd say, even in the same time-zone as a reliable source for a [[WP:LIVING|biography of a living individual]. Fys asserts that this has been covered in the national press. Fine: let him source it from the national press. A citation to the Times is unlikely to be anything like as controversial as a citation to an attack blog. As an aside, he is right that the other accounts are almost certainly associated with Milton's office, but that does not actually change matters at all, since if the subject of a biography has a problem with questionably sourced content, policy says we remove it there and then without making them find the Foundation's telephone number. Simple vandalism this is not, and the problem is much more with Fys' steadfast refusal to accept that fact - and by extension the deliberately strongly-worded terms of WP:LIVING - than with his other behaviour. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I somehow tend to agree w/ you on this! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I note that Fys claims that a talk page consensus exists for his version. Examination of the talk page shows that this issue was first brought up in June, with a variety of editors arguing for and against the case. There does not appear to be a consensual resolution, and the last talk page edit was October 5th. (Radiant) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And in all that time we still have no better source than the blog itself, despite assertions it's been covered in the press. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First block review, please

Asking as a relatively new admin, I made my first block today and want to know if I crossed all the i's correctly (i). It's of 66.10.167.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism to Saryn Hooks, mostly by changing her last name to the obvious noun (as if it wasn't bad enough as a verb). Multiple escalating warnings, vandalism once or twice per day for the last 4 consecutive days. Potentially controversial things might be that it's a 48 hour block, while WP:BLOCK does say that 24 hour blocks are more standard, however the vandalism has had about 24 hour gaps, so a 24 hour block might not have any effect. There was a 24 hour block by another admin a few months back. It's an IP, but doesn't seem to be a shared one. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable to me - a textbook case of a somewhat puerile vandal who thinks he's being funny. (Radiant) 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

SETI "Consipracy" section was taken out without any notice!

Someone removed the SETI "Conspiracy" section without any notice! I had gotten approval that the section was allowed, yet somebody came in a few days later (after I had posted it) and removed the section without any warning or reason! Can we please lock SETI to only registered users? nima baghaei 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was removed by a registered user, so that wouldn't help - note that it was also restored by someone else a few minutes later. More importantly, it's not vandalism, it's a content dispute - some people think a YouTube video is a sufficient source for an assertion that SETI is hiding extraterrestrial signals, some don't. Talk it out on Talk:SETI, content discussions are what it's for. It's not an admin issue yet. If it gets more serious, see Wikipedia: Dispute resolution, but it's not that serious yet, talk it out, please. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)