Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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)

Well, there doesn't seem to be any objection to the article ban. Would anyone like to inform him? I'm already quite involved in the situation so it would be best if I didn't myself, of course. Cowman109^Talk 05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --InShaneee 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, you should list specifically the articles from which he's banned. By my accounting, that's Derek Smart, Battlecruiser 3000AD, Universal Combat as well as any redirects (e.g. 3000AD, Universal Combat Special Edition). Also, whether it apply to the associated talk pages. This just to avoid the inevitable "Well, you weren't specific"... - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this straight. I get banned based on a consensus by the very same people who got me banned those past times? Not to mention that this was done in a secretive manner and none of the prominent editors of the Derek Smart were even aware of it, let alone get a chance to offer their opinions? Yet another example of what is so very - very - wrong with Wiki. You folks on a power trip think that Wiki is where you can get to display your power over someone. And to those of you who stupidly keep saying that I'm Derek Smart, you should be so lucky to think that he even gives a damn about what a bunch of nobodys are writing on a Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thats Wiki for you. Its the virtual version of a Kangaroo court where if enough dissenters get together and gang up on someone, they can inevitably reach a consensus. I for one do NOT support this ban as it is highly dubious and unwarranted. WarHawkSP 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Supreme_Cmdr has just done a revert over on the Derek Smart article. Ehheh 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like, there is no consensus for the ban and I will simply not honor it. Here, let me quote from WP:BAN for those of you who think you can just get together and ban someone.

Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The choice was either a site-wide block or an article ban. The article ban was chosen as the less-restrictive of the two. If you reject it, your forcing the choice or option A.

This is actually how it's done. ANI is hardly a secret board, it's the usual place for reporting disruptive editors. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr has been blocked for another 2 weeks for blatantly violating this article ban. I'm beginning to lose my patience with him, as it is clear he will not acknowledge that he is not to edit the articles relating to Derek Smart any further. Perhaps an indefinite block should be considered once more? Cowman109^Talk 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectively note, this 'consensus' was not established by a Request for Comment and in fact is very different from the legitimate consensus established by his last RfC. Addhoc 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

True, perhaps more time should be spent on this discussion, but I think it's clear there is already enough evidence that Supreme Cmdr won't stop this year-long edit warring, so even an indefinite block would be appropriate at this time. More people are welcome to comment, but so far the only exception to those agreeing is a user who is currently being looked at for being a potential meatpuppet of Supreme Cmdr. Cowman109^Talk 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This behavior fits 100% with the well documented behavior of Derek Smart on his own forums, and on the newsgroups. Do a google search for Derek Smart Flame War, it's all over. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's a little fishy how at the same time, user WarHawkSP pops up, with edits only to Derek Smart, the user page acknowledges it's a sockpuppet, and it takes the side of Supreme_Cmdr.....⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from a third party view, If he is the creator of said media, why block him? Couldn't he provide you with the most accurate information seeing as he's the one who made it and all?GrandMasterGalvatron 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He could, but he would also have to provide sources as we need verifiable information. Either way, his editing habits are unproductive and disruptive. Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawkSP (talk · contribs)

I add this subsection now because WarHawkSP (talk · contribs) is exhibiting the same behavior as SupremeCmdr, however checkuser shows no link between the two users. Per the previous ArbCom ruling at Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Sockpuppets (and_related_principles)For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. I would like third parties to examine the behavior of WarHawkSP, as in my opinion his behavior is exactly the same that got SupremeCmdr blocked. Note his block log is shorter as he lost his previous account, Warhawk, who was already blocked for being a suspected sockpuppet. So, I'd like to hear what other people think about the possibility of an article ban on User:WarHawkSP as they appear to be a single purpose account whose edits only pertain to Derek Smart. Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Light current

Light current (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) :There's been some disagreement over at the reference desk- see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Disrupting_the_reference_desk_to_make_a_point. My personal opinion here is that Light current is either completely clueless or is intentionally trolling, and I've given him a stern finger-wag. However, my supply of AGF is probably running out with this guy so I wonder if anyone else has opinions. Friday (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a situation before at one of the content policies that appeared to involve trolling from Light current. The warning was a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Good luck. See his block log. A warning was proper though. Considering the numerous ones he's had in the past, I wouldn't mess about if he continues however. pschemp | talk 04:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current doesn't really strike me as bad, but he sometimes acts in a juvenile manner. Dragons flight 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. He either does not have, or does not use, good judgement about what to say. At a certain point, however, even if we assume the best of intentions, something has to be done. -- SCZenz 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know I have responded to all current criticisms and taken corrective action (including deletions). If there are any other outstanding issues, please let me know. 8-)--Light current 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current, be aware that it is common for people to be banned from places they disrupt. I hope you have decided to stop the nonsense. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to all the issues raised. If you raise a specific issue that has not already been dealt with I will respond.--Light current 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, you asked for opinions, so here is mine. I don't see how Light current is being disruptive. You unilaterally deleted a non-offensive question about HRT from the Science RD; Light current re-instated the question; and then Light current and StuRat discussed the issue with you on StuRat's talk page. For you to say that Light current is "completely clueless or is intentionally trolling" is unjustified, and very close to a personal attack. Gandalf61 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Friday is biased in this matter, and should recuse himself from any actions, as he indicated he would do: "But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it" [1]. That was a good idea, it's too bad he didn't do as he said, and leave this matter to other, calmer heads. StuRat 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you check his contributions? Particular gems include making a masturbation joke in response to a RD question. He's been quite unresponsive to complaints on his talk page. Well, unresponsive is not the right word- he responds, as a chattering child might respond. But thus far he's failed to modify his behavior. Friday (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with Light current's contributions. Do you have a link for the masturbation joke ? If you are thinking of the "popping your collar" remark, I found that quite funny in context, but I don't believe it was one of Light current's answers. Gandalf61 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

How do you know it was related to masturbation? THat interpretation is purely in your mind!--Light current 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. Here's another recent off-topic sexual remark that someone complained about here. See also the numerous complaints on his talk page about his RD activities. He seems to honestly believe in his right to use the RD as a chat board. I'm not opposed to a certain amount of that, but here's a user who's been getting and ignoring complaints for some time. He's exhausted my patience, but I don't know if he's exhausted the entire community's patience yet. Note that mostly his remarks aren't that bad in isolation- you have to look at the overall pattern of disruptive behavior to see the problem here. He seems to enjoy being a pest- if there are little or no useful contributions to offset this, the answer looks obvious to me. But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it. Friday (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He has not been "ignoring complaints", he has discused them, and, where appropriate (and given the opportunity to do so), he has reverted his edits. StuRat 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can't remember what you meant by the "masturbation joke". Is it possible you are conflating the activities of several RD users, and attributing them all to Light current ? As for the "photography" example, Light current's remark was challenged on the RD talk page, and Light current says he would have amended it, but we will never know if he would have, because you didn't give him a chance - you deleted his response 7 minutes after it was raised on the talk page. That does begin to look like stalking behaviour to me. You say that Light current irritates you - my opinion is that this irritation has led to you no longer being objective about his behaviour. Gandalf61 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember it fine, and the diff is here. Why are you objecting to me quickly deleting irrelevant (and possibly, slightly offensive) content? Doing it slower doesn't mean it gets done better. Yes, I've been reviewing his contributions- so have others. This is so we can remove the more juvenile and off-topic remarks he makes, since he's demonstrated no judgment of his own. I guess one man's "stalking" is another's "damage control". However I intent to continue to remove rude, irrelevant, and/or unhelpful comments from pages as I see fit. This is neither a playground, a chat board, nor a forum for free speech. Friday (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted to Light current's talk page before, mostly over the same sort of problems. See archived threads here and here for examples. One comment in particular was very illuminating: "When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel. 8-)" (28 October 2006) [2] - despite the smiley, this either displays the wrong attitude, or a worrying lack of judgement over the right time and place to make jokes. This lack of judgment is evident at the Reference Desk as well. There also seems to be a pattern of behaviour along the lines of pushing the boundaries and defying authority up to a certain point, and then claiming innocence, and saying that he has "responded to all queries". Overall, the attitude and behaviour is often (but not always) juvenile and immature. Ultimately, I would say stern warnings (when needed) from uninvolved parties may be the only way to get the message through, along with some mentoring. Of course, the behaviour may improve over time as the user gains experience in life and Wikipedia. And it would be unfair to single out Light current. There are others that exhibit the same sort of behaviour. Possibly showing these sort of users other areas of Wikipedia they could contribute to would work well, as then they really will encounter people who will tell them exactly what they think of silly behaviour. Carcharoth 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree that there are other problem editors with the same sort of behavior. LC seems to be buddies with some of them. But, we have to start somewhere. Agree that warnings are reasonable but they have thus far been ineffective. Whether the "innocent child" routine is genuine or not I don't particularly care- the disruption is the same either way. He also made some reference to his edit count to me, as though he believes this justifies his behavior. Anyway, he's characterized my telling him his behavior needs to change as "stalking", which I guess translates into "leave me alone and let me do what I want." A block might help him understand that his behavior really is a problem, but it's hard to point to a single edit that clearly warrants such action. Friday (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What about an WP:RFC for user conduct? If enough people agree with what they think the problem is, the message might get through. Carcharoth 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth: User_talk:Light_current#RFC. He says he understands that many people think his editing is frequently inappropriate. Time will tell I suppose. Friday (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reason with him about a month ago (archived at User talk:Light current/archive7#comment at RD/science with a related thread starting at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 13#Joking on RD with no apparent improvement on his part. This is where the "When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel." quote came from. When it became clear to him that I'm an admin he backed off (somewhat), but has been pushing the edge ever since. I fear RFC may be the only recourse. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 1 week. See my explanation at User_talk:Light_current#Enough. As always, I invite others to review and adjust as they see fit. Friday (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears harsh at first glance, but I understand the logic. When a user clearly alludes to masturbation and then tries to convince people that it's all in their own heads, that's trolling. LC often seems bent on arguing that nobody can prove what he's talking about, and that the judgement and common sense of others may be faulty, so there's nothing anybody can do; I've talked to him before about the fallacies of this approach, but I guess the lesson didn't sink in. Unfortunately, I'm not sure a long block will make him behave better—but I also have no idea what else to do. -- SCZenz 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced it will help either, but it will make the trolling go away temporarily. Or, at any rate it'll confine it to his own page where he can talk to himself all day long as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the feedback, glad I wasn't completely unreasonable here. Friday (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but a week seems a little harsh to me. Light current has shown that he can talk the talk (ie. he says he understands what is wrong and will try better in the future), but I would say judge his actions during a probationary period. Unblock or reduce the block length, and make clear that disruptive behaviour during the probationary period of a week will result in the block being reimposed. ie. Make clearer to him what sort of behaviour he needs to avoid, and then watch for a week to see that he does avoid that sort of behaviour. Again, mentoring is really what is needed ere, with someone to politely tap the shoulder and say "ahem, do you really think that is suitable?" Carcharoth 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, both nonsexual jokes and the serious discussion of sexual topics, such as masturbation, are allowed on the Ref Desk, but there do appear to be significant objections to sexual jokes. That's fine, but the editor should then be asked to remove the post and given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Instead, Friday removed it himself, depriving User:light current of the opportunity to do so, then used this post later as a justification for blocking this editor for a week. Note that User:light current did not restore the comment, and shows every sign of being reasonable in this matter. Furthermore, Friday's actions regarding the Ref Desk have been needlessly rude, as he himself admits: [3] and disruptive recently, including his suggestion that the Ref Desk be deleted entirely. StuRat 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good point, it's not nearly as serious as if you had asked him and he had refused- friday did it himself and then blamed him. LC posted it in the first place of course but he should have a chance.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

As an addendum to all this, I am serious that users who use Wikipedia as a chat room or discussion place, should be encouraged to take that behaviour to genuine discussion forums. Lord knows there are enough IRC chatrooms and bulletin boards out there, and Usenet as well. Carcharoth 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support block. I like User:Light current and I think he enjoys editing here. But he has to realize that his reference desk behaviour is crossing that murky line from making funny comments to being disruptive. If he shows a willingness to tone down his RD commentary on his talk page, I'd be in favour of unblocking -- Samir धर्म 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support block. This guy has been trolling, and the block will reduce disruption. Hopefully it will only be needed once. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a non-admin, but I support the block. Comments like this are not acceptable, especially in light of given question. Were this isolated, it would not be a problem, but he was warned, and continues to lawyer around with things like "you can't prove I meant that". I'm also worried by comments like "I've responded to any specific issues", which seem to be his way of saying, "I'm only going to respond to past questions, and not necessarily fix my behavior in the future." Friday had every right to remove offensive comments on sight; we don't just let ugly comments sit on the board, just so a user has the chance to go back and remove them later to prove his genuineness. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I support. This guy is disruptive, and incivil. Viewing his comments on AN/I should tell you that in an instant. I probably won't remember to recheck this so if you have a comment on my comment, leave a message on my user talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this block. User:Friday has admitted he is biased in this matter, and the "punishment" here is way out of line with the "crime": "But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it" [4]. StuRat 09:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am a non-admin, and I oppose this block. Light current's reaction to criticism of his RD posts has been persistent but polite. I have seen no evidence that he has broken WP guidelines or policy. He has not been disruptive. Friday has over-reacted, and has allowed his feelings of irritation to override his judgement. He has abused his admin powers to pursue a personal disagreement with Light current. He has escalated from his initial AN/I post to a week long block in less than 24 hours. If Friday thought a block was necessary, he should have proposed this course of action, given Light current a chance to defend himself, obtained concensus on the term of the block and asked an uninvolved admin to enact it. Gandalf61 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Gandalf61. StuRat 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that it's OK for a user to post out-of-context comments about masturbation, camera voyeurism, and other inappropriate subjects, and then, when confronted, not to be penitent, but to lawyer, refuse to admit fault, to argue, and to obfuscate ("you don't know that's what I meant"). I'm sorry, posting nonsense like that, then pretending you did nothing wrong, after repeatedly being asked to stop is totally unacceptable. I'm sorry, he should know better than that. And, I know you're frustrated with Friday, but the fact is, that is an ongoing problem; this is far from the first time this user has been a problem in such areas. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• An Admin should be neutral, but User:Friday appears to "have it in for" User:light current, resulting in his imposing a week long block for what is, at best, a minor problem. It appears as though User:Friday was looking for any excuse to impose a block. User:light current has been willing to remove any of his posts which are found to be inappropriate, if given the chance. User:Friday, however, has not given him that chance. StuRat 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In what areas? The ref desk? I don't recall having ever seen you there.

• The ref desk is going to die this way. A one week block?! I sometimes wonder what LC is talking about, but I don't find him disruptive at all. I still don't get what he is being blocked for. It's all about one single remark that he himself agreed to remove (had he been given a chance) and when Friday is asked for another example he restates the same one. Other examples given are from his own talk page. His own talk page! Is that a reason for a block? A one week block? Much more disruptive is factually wrong information, because that looks like a useful answer. That is not the case here. This is about a silly remark. If this sort of deletionist behaviour continues at the ref desk and those who protest it are blocked (in stead of the other way around) the ref desk will become dull, many useful editors will leave (there are too few already as it is) and the ref desk will die. I have already noticed this happening, as I predicted it would. And it's going to get worse. This censorship has to stop. No need to block me. I've done that myself. After thousands of edits over the last year I have decided to stop contributing to the ref desk. And this is probably my last contribution to this page too. It's all too childish for me to waste time on. If people get blocked for a week for something like this, I'm out of here. To those who say 'good riddance' (there will be those): I didn't get two of my three barnstars for my work at the ref desk for nothing. DirkvdM 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are going to block yourself? From this it looks like SCZenz blocked you, not yourself. This is not censorship. The reference desk needs to be kept on topic and focused. The more 'playful' and 'stream of consciousness' it becomes, the less useful it is. As I've said above, there are plenty of other places to joke around at, but WP:RD is not one of them. FWIW, I too think the 1-week ban is too harsh, and I also think Friday needs to provide a clearer reason, and Friday should have left it to an uninvolved admin to impose a block, if needed. Carcharoth 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• That block has ended. He is saying he will not participate in the Ref Desk in the future, even though allowed to do so, because of his disgust at the level of hostility aimed at certain Ref Desk contributors from certain Admins, such as User:Friday and User:SCZenz. StuRat 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. You beat me to it once again. Btw, this is a nice example of how some people don't understand certain types of humour. Which is no reason to delete it. One note to what you said: I don't care if it's admins who do it. Any deletions (by others) at the ref desk are baaaaaad because there are about a thousand edtis per day there, which makes it impossible to keep track of deletions. If that issue is somehow resolved, notify me. I might return. DirkvdM 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose one week block: Support 12/24-hour block: I did not see any warnings on User talk:Light current so I was going to oppose any block pending adequate warning, but then I discovered that LC has prematurely archived the warning and lots of relevant discussion on this topic with this edit. I find that disingenuous and it speaks to the need for administrative disincentive for inappropriate behavior (dare I say disruptive? don't mean to dis anyone). I have myself found some of LC's post to the forum frivilous and I personally have decided to ignore any questions posted by him. That is based on what I saw as "crying wolf", i.e. asking questions that he really had no desire to have answered, just for fun. I hinted at such in this edit. I considered that LC was disrespectful to the fact that I had gone to the effort of giving him a legitimate answer to what I thought was a legitimate question. As I myself just consider LC overly playful I did not see fit to warn him otherwise. That Friday sees his behaviour as more serious is a matter for those two to sort out but to the degree that LC ignored the warning then he can have the block but one week is WAY excessive; 12 or 24 hours is better. --Justanother 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: SCZenz even removed (not 'archived') a warning template I placed on his talk page. When I asked other admins about this, the answer was that one can do whatever one likes at ones own talk page. Even though this was a bit more than just 'disingeneous'. DirkvdM 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that calling SCZenz' attempts to improve the desk according to his own understanding of purpose and policy; calling those efforts "vandalism" is baiting and he was justified to remove it. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I also think that admins that "don't like the reference desk" should give it a wide berth. I am not judging anyone there, I am simply making a comment. I further hope that LightCurrent (and others) can come to understand that the banter and off-topic junk on the Desks is an enjoyable aside to the real work of answering questions and is never to be started or encouraged as an end-in-itself. I hope that LC gets something out of all this effort and remains on the Desk. --Justanother 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose one week block. I feel very strongly about this, as an RD regular. I think sometimes LC is over the top, but he's shown suitable contrition in response to the recent discussions. I regularly do RC patrol and report vandals. I see persistent, malicious blankers and offensive posters receive blocks much shorter than 1 week. And they are non penitent. Shorten this please. --Dweller 14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Even if one accepted that Light current needed blocking, a one-week block is inappropriately harsh. Yesterday a spammer who created two articles spamming a website, who deleted spam tags from them, recreated the delteed articles twice after admin deletion, listed the article on the req for page protection page to try to protect it from *me* and the deleting admins, forged my signature, and then lied about it, requested a review of the block, got one, blanked the user page and requested another one, got the same--a week's blocking.

Furthermore, even if one accepted that Light current needed blocking, the action for which he was blocked was under active & general discussion and it was premature to do so prior to some conclusion of that discussion, especially in the absence of clear, uncontradicted and unambiguous guidelines about the behavior for which he's been blocked.

So I would appeal to Friday to rethink the week block and lift it, undoing the self-action, and parole Light current to time served. -THB 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Opposeblock as clearly excessive. This is an unwarranted abuse of admin powers by user:Friday, who has previously proposed eliminating the reference desk: "I'm probably going against years of established practice here, but I fail to see how the reference desk adds encyclopedic value. It's a time-waster- why don't we just ditch the whole thing? Friday (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" It is very hard to assume good faith when an admin proposes eliminating the reference desk then applies grossly excessive penalties to frequent contributors. Edison 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, Friday should recuse himself from all matters related the Ref Desk, as his extreme bias against the Ref Desk negatively affects his judgment in such matters. StuRat 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a few remarks and I'll probably bow out of this. As for warnings, there were months of warnings prior to this from different people. Light current has been blocked for trolling before. This was blatantly obvious trolling yet he kept up his "innocent and clueless" routine. He's just looking for a reaction out of people- check out his attempts to engage in conversation after the block, acting like he doesn't know what he did wrong. I did start the discussion here well before blocking, and so far there seems to be admin consensus for the block. So, I'm not personally inclined to change it, however my standard offer still stands: if any admin disagrees with this and wants to change it, I invite them to do so. I don't "own" my blocks any more than we own our edits. I realize a week seems harsh here, but he was very obviously trolling and this has been an ongoing problem, apparently for quite a long while. I acknowledge this is a tricky situation- hardly any of Light current's edits, taking in isolation, seem remotely blockable. This is why I sought input from others before and after the block. Also, please- let's not let this turn into a perceived "admins versus reference desk" fight- I blocked one particular editor- discussion of other editors who are also problems are not relevant to this situation. If anyone cares to notice, after some initial disgust at the sorry state of the reference desk and me questioning whether it adds any value to the project, I've decided it IS valuable, so I've jumped in and started trying to help answer questions. I thank all the people who do useful work at the reference desk, or in any other part of the project. Friday (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You say let's not let this turn into a perceived "admins versus reference desk" fight, after having said "there seems to be admin consensus for the block", thus implying that you ignore the opinions and consensus of non-Admins, and in particular Ref Desk contributors. Can't you see how ignoring the opinions of non-Admins causes just the type of problem you claim you want to avoid ? If you want everyone to work together, then you need to respect the opinions of everyone, not just Admins. StuRat 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention! I'm going rogue and starting a wheel war!

Er, by which I mean that I'm lifting the block on Light current. Per THB, I'm paroling him. I don't think that the block was undeserved, but I do think that LC has acknowledged ([5]) that some of his comments were inappropriate for the forum in which he made them and that his judgement has not been up to snuff on occasion.

I think that leaving the block in place will shed more heat than light, as the mounting evidence here would suggest. LC is often a useful and productive contributor to the Ref Desk, and – providing he can restrain his occasional impulse towards off-colour humour and borderline newbie-biting – it would be a shame to lose that. I fear that we may have rushed into a block just when LC was starting to 'get' that the weight of opinion did not support his behaviour. I think it appropriate to give him a shot at reform. Note that I do not use the word 'parole' lightly, and I do expect that LC will make every reasonable effort to temper his remarks. His block will be restored (by me or by someone else) if he doesn't avail himself of this opportunity.

Note also that I expect other parties (both to this specific incident and those involved in the broader Ref Desk discussions) to refrain from sniping, kicking LC or others while down, taunting, gloating, oh-so-'clever' remarks, or anything else that might be taken as a lapse in civility. I'll be all over any sort of 'I-told-you-so', namecalling, 'You-don't-have-a-right-to-talk-about-Ref-Desk-because-you're-not-there-as-much-as-I-am-so-sod-off', or other petty ugliness like stink on cheese. We're at the Reference Desk. We're supposed to be there to help our fellow human beings, and we're doing it because we're nice, friendly, helpful people. Is everyone clear on that? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, thank you for opening the door to lift his block. It would have been better had Friday done it, but Friday did leave the door unlocked and let it be known that it was unlocked, so that's a good thing. -THB 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block on general principle. This seemed like a reasonable judgement call by the admin, and it isn't a horribly extended or indefinite block, so we shouldn't be second-guessing it. - Crockspot 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• It is hard to assume good faith when Friday applies an exceptionally long bloc for a minor offense on the part of a frequent contributor to Reference desk after Friday has said "I'm very serious. I stay away from the reference desk but have dropped in a few times lately due to reports of problems there. I was rather shocked at what I saw. I suppose we must let each editor contribute in their own way, but I've not seen a bigger time-waster here than the RD. This is an encyclopedia- the goals of the project go no further. When I buy a copy of Brittanica, I've bought an encyclopedia. I don't expect that this includes a guy who will come to my house, hold my hand, and read it to me. Is it reasonable to expect a reference desk? Not in my opinion. We're an encyclopedia, not a forum, and not a place to get other people to do your research for you. Friday (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" Edison 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Please note that my request to be utterly civil and courteous and to try to put this behind us wasn't actually solely for the pleasure of hearing myself type. It would be appreciated if you stopped quoting that remark on talk pages and noticeboards in an attempt to push Friday out of this discussion. If you look upward about six comments, you'll see that Friday has reconsidered his opinion on the Ref Desk, and is actually endeavouring to be a helpful participant there. In the same comment, he also explains that the block was not for a single incident, but for a pattern of behaviour — which we all hope and expect has now been remediated – from an editor who has received many warnings about his conduct. I will also note that Friday has expressed support for my approach to handling this block, and that he seems to be a pretty reasonable guy. I expect that he would have done exactly what I did had I sent him a polite message—I was just impatient at the bickering here. It is not appropriate to kick Light current while he's down, nor is it appropriate to try to lynch Friday while he's being reasonable and accomodating. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if an admin is only starting to understand a project as radically unique as the RD, maybe he shouldn't be allowed to assert his admin powers there. Which I don't necessarily agree with by the way --froth^{T C} 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can I assert my opinion into this one? I don't know if it's valuable here, but it looks like there's a long history of Light Current managing to find a way to get blocked, then unblocked. And the one time he wasn't unblocked was by Pschemp, and he's still bitter about that. In other words, perhaps we need to make it clear that infinite patience doesn't exist, and constantly walking the oline between appropriate and inappropriate, then acting like "poor persecuted me" when he called on it, won't be tolerated forever. That being said, he is a long-time contributer. I dunno: it's "yes, we love you at Wikipedia, no, you can't make masturbation and porn jokes out of context at ref desk after being warned for it." Patstuart^talk|edits 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confident that enough people have seen this pattern of behavior to ensure that it won't be allowed to continue unchecked. (can't keep my big mouth shut, sorry). Friday (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we so soft on a user who continues in a pattern of pushing the line? LC's actions appear childish and are frustrating when they happen again and again. i see this block as a cumulative effect of LC's own actions. Friday was right to block in such a situation, although, possibly a week was too long, but I do not know enough of this users background to judge. Regardless of the length of block, if these actions continue then the blocks should become progressively more severe. LC's claims of innocense, given the masturbation link posted by Friday above, are laughable. Go to usenet for toilet humour. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose block. Friday has a clear conflict of interest- see their back-and-forth in the latest archive of the RD talk. Other than that I would have said that he deserved it anyway (after due process, not this one day AN/I fiasco) but lately he really has been quite good about responding to criticisms and having an open mind about his behavior. Also, I'd like to say that I appreciate that friday is starting to understand the point of the RD. Admittedly it seems overblown and unnecessary at first glance but there really is a huge demand for it and light current is overall a positive contributor. I'd hate to lose him over this --froth^{T C} 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well just to round off this discussion, I would like to say that all this apparent waste of time has indeed shown something:

We all make mistakes, some more than others. He who never made a mistake, never made anything. Let us not judge too harshly, lest we be judged in the same manner. Peace on all! 8-)--Light current 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd like to thank all my supporters for defending me and pleading for me. And I will try not to hold it agianst anyone who supported my blocking. I think we ahave all leaneda little from this unpleasant episode. 8-)--Light current 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in late to this, but I have to say that I oppose the block. I do think Light current is too flippant on the RD, and it would not hurt for him to be mentored, but I'm trying awfully hard to wonder why so many admins are suddenly hopping into the RD and tsktsking when they aren't regular participants. The RD has been running fine for months now, there is nothing wrong with the way those of us who do frequent do things there. We need to quit warring over this, guys. Try talking first, blocking second. I would support an RfC on Light Current. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current, rather than giving somewhat veiled threats to those who opposed you, is it possible you could just admit wrong-doing, say you're sorry, and promise to stop in the future? Amazingly, you seem unable to do this. Already on your talk page, talking about the censorship on RD (having masturbation comments removed, what awful tyranny). Two ounces of penitence goes a long way. This is the kind of half-hearted backdoor response that's gotten you blocked 7 times. Patstuart^talk|edits 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how his opinion on censorship, listed on his own talk page, can be grounds for a complaint here. StuRat 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to his above comment. i only came back and added the thing about censorship later when I found it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I am a completely neutral party here, having never even been to the RD. However, I just want to chime in and note that, after reading this report and the one above about the block of DirkvdM, it seems to me that a number of users view the RD as a fiefdom and a lot of the debate here has been about "people who frequent" the RD and letting them do things their way, and criticisms of users who "don't usually hang around" at RD but nonetheless voiced opinions in these matters, as though they had no right to do so. Seems a little skewed to me.--Dmz5 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Since Light current was unblocked, I noticed a set of edits to You have two cows such as this one where the edit summaries made it sound like he was removing jokes. (Light current is currently upset at WT:RD that people have been criticising joke answers to articles.) However he was removing content from an article about a set of jokes. The removal was reverted, so that's not an issue. But, I really have to wonder about WP:POINT here. I'm not doing anything about this myself, due to the complete uproar caused by my recent block on Light current, and my own questioning of my remaining supply of AGF. However I bring this here in case others have opinions on this. Friday (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits at You have two cows have nothing at all to do with my recent blocking. i dont know why Friday is continuing to persecute and stalk me in this manner.--Light current 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I note with regret that Light current has opted to try to push the envelope of WP:POINT (and also made at least one attack on Friday) since I unblocked him as a gesture of good faith. I have restored the remaining six days of his original block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin plays detective...what next?

Ever want to sleuth down one of the long term vandals? Well a couple of people think I've succeeded. My summaries of the matter are at User_talk:Durova#Editor_X_.2F_Joan_of_Arc andTalk:Joan_of_Arc#Return_of_Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse.23Joan_of_Arc_vandal.3F, which I daresay make interesting reading especially if you put on a pair of dark sunglasses and play The Pink Panther theme. If my evidence holds up to scrutiny, this guy has been disrupting Wikipedia's Catholicism, homosexuality, and crossdressing articles for 26 months without getting caught (December 8 will be his anniversary).

Trouble is, because he's been so slippery, I probably can't get a checkuser on this sock drawer. Doc Tropics suggested an RfC. I'd like to find out whether I'm right and if I'm on the mark I'd like to seek a community ban. So all of you Sherlock Holmes types, come on over and bring your magnifying glass. This one might boggle your eyes. Durova^Charge! 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That took a while to read! You have amassed a bevy of suggestive evidence; statistically, Editor X could have won the lottery before being two people from the same town with the same in-depth knowledge and yet rather bizarre theories, unless of course, he has converts. In either case, the behavior is incredibly disruptive not just because of the behavior itself, but the subtly with which it undermines the article. The editor has already been almost completely unresponsive to discussion and attempts to reform their behavior including being dishonest when cornered - since it doesn't appear meaningful contact can be made, I'd support the idea of a community ban. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[ec] Blimey. That was a patient and thorough piece of work! I suspect that support for a ban based on this will be pretty much unanimous, but one could always take it to ArbCom in case of doubt. Gold star, either way. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can try and help you get a checkuser through but if he's on AOL it won't do any good. If you assemble a list of accounts with recent edits (<1 month) and a brief statement, go ahead and file it. I expect once more people read this they will support a ban without technical confirmation (which can only go back a few weeks in any case). Thatcher131 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've invited one of these accounts to agree to a checkuser. How exactly does the AOL wrinkle crease this seam - would they be limited to confirming whether or not this person hails from Reston, Virginia? That could be enough in light of the other evidence. I'm not the least bit averse to naming him at AOL's abuse department and requesting they revoke his service. That would take considerably less effort than I've already spent undoing his damage. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's using AOL then I'm not sure how you can even be sure of his geographic location, since I think all US AOL addresses show up as Reston VA. Unless this editor made a specific slip-up which I am reluctant to discuss publically, the only thing checkuser could reveal is that each of the suspected accounts has edited from AOL. Since thousands of editors use AOL, this would not provide any confirmation that the accounts were operated by the same person. A check may still be productive if this person was careless in a certain way, or he may be using multiple ISPs where it would be easier to track him. Thatcher131 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. To the best of my knowledge he's been a loyal AOL customer. They host his website - and as extraordinary as this is for an AOL homepage, of the 3 million-odd Google returns for a "Joan of Arc" search he's consistently numero uno. So regardless of his actual residence location I'm pretty sure AOL's abuse department could pinpoint him and I don't think he wants his service interrupted. What worries me more is his disruption on other topics, which appears to have been continuous - the homosexuality pages especially. I'm getting set to roll up my sleeves and dig into that evidence now that people take this matter seriously - he's clever but not too clever. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing checkuser can do then is, for any user name he has used in the last month or so, give you the IP address as of the time of its edits. This would probably not be released to you but could be forwarded to AOL's abuse department, so they could attempt to determine if the wikipedia vandal is the same person whose web site they host. I don't know what it would take to convince AOL to take action, though. Thatcher131 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova: All AOL users show up from Reston, Virginia. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the IP address for AOL users is never linked to a specific account but instead is based on the page (URL) being viewed or edited -- see Wikipedia's information on this. It's very odd but that's how AOL IPs work for reasons known only to their engineers.

The upshot is that an IP check won't do any good and neither will reporting a set of IPs to AOL. They're likely to just ignore you because you won't be reporting a single and discrete user given that all users are on the same range of IPs. You will instead be telling them that some of the many millions of AOL subscribers happen to get those IPs while editing certain articles, which is not going to come as a surprise to them.

You can never be sure whether an AOL vandal is one person or a whole host of users who end up editing under the same IPs. Other websites such as BBs have the same problem. EReference 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the dissection of AOL's innards. Since I actually do have this vandal's real-life name, would AOL's abuse department take notice? Durova^Charge! 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, aren't you assuming that the IPs are linked to that real name? They wouldn't necessarily be linked to a given individual, or even a single individual. And since anyone can claim to be anyone else on here, a name is not proof of identity. AOL cannot suspend someone's paid account based merely on an allegation. This comes up repeatedly on many websites since there's no way to tell who anyone really is on the internet. EReference 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, with all due respect for your detective work, I'm a tad uncomfortable with you referring to the guy as a "vandal" and "long-term abuser". Did he ever get blocked? He's not currently banned under any of his accounts, is he? From your description I take it that his main accounts were used subsequently, not in parallel for blatant illegitimate sockpuppetry, or were they? I mean, I have no doubt he may be a disruptive POV-pusher, but has he done anything actually "illegal" in Wikipedia terms besides POV-pushing? And what would we expect his ISP to do about that, at this stage? Let's ban him if he's as disruptive as you say, and then we'll see - any new reincarnations of his will probably be easy enough to spot, once people are alerted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know he's flown underneath nearly every radar except mine. In his earliest months Fire Star tried to offer him some guidance. He was still trying to behave like a regular Wikipedian back then. One quick answer about sockpuppetry is User_talk:Durova/Archive_5#Wikistalking (with several instances of blanking vandalism thrown in). User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc demonstrates that he violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:VANITY, WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:POINT. Possibly WP:COI also. The damage he caused at Joan of Arc has been incredibly pervasive and subtle - not just garden variety POV pushing but degrading footnotes, inserting inaccurate statements into previously cited material, and fraudulent citations. He even vanity published and faked the appearance of a legitimate scholarly journal in order to bypass site standards and cite himself. Note that the author name on the pseudojournal is the same as the name he self-identified on the original account, and that the IP inserted it while coyly avoiding use of the author's name at Wikipedia. Due to the high profile of the Joan of Arc article I acutally had to dig through several thousand edits to undo the harm that he caused - expending weeks of my time. If you need more evidence than I've already supplied at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc then say so and I'll dig up other examples and more diffs. The peculiar POV he pushes and the amount of scholarly background it reflects identify him as unique - how likely is it that two different people would strain the evidence to draw identical conclusions about a 1929 scholarly work available only in French? And describe their views with the same syntactical structure and leap into edit wars? I know how serious this allegation is and I wouldn't raise it unless I had researched this with extreme care. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I remember looking at the constributions of Center-for-Medieval-Studies (talk · contribs) after he edited some pages on the Dukes of Burgundy. He was accused at the time of being identical AWilliamson (talk · contribs) (see diff of him removing those from his talk page). IMO, this falls under the "users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies" portion of the blocking policy, WP:OR in particular. Faking up a vanity journal to insert your point of view is absolutely the sort of behavior for which you should be run out of Wikipedia on a rail — it's a direct attack on our credibility. I haven't been involved in any disputes with Center-for-Medieval-Studies, and haven't been involved in the Joan of Arc article, so I feel I qualify as an uninvolved endorser of a ban. Choess 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got to give a nod to Switisweti. During my first weeks as an editor he clued me in to some of this activity. That guy had an awful time because he'd been trying to watch Williamson for a year but lacked the academic expertise to challenge him in detail. Plus there was another disruptive editor at the article who pursued an entirely different agenda. Switi and I wound up holding conversations at my user talk page in German in order to dodge them (I didn't realize that was un-Wikipedian at the time). Switi finally quit the project a year ago and I can't say I blame him, but I hope he rejoins us someday. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support a ban.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova has done an exceptional job of gathering and presenting evidence which, if accurate (and it appears to be), would certainly warrant a community ban for long-term systematic abuse. I had thought that ANI might not be able to respond to such a convoluted case, but between D's excellent summary, and the dedication of the editors who have posted here, I realize that I underestimated Wikipedians in general. Sometimes I'm actually quite happy to be wrong : ) Doc Tropics 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support a community ban (disclaimer: I've been involved in a dispute with the editor in question). I'd be more comfortable if there were technical confirmation, but for the reasons explained above it seems unlikely that WP:RFCU will do any good--another reason to dislike AOL. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross posting the following from my user talk page: if any doubt remains, have a look at some diffs from Voln's talk page. This says "Archiving" in the edit note and an exceptionally small archive was created. The types of complaints and the topics covered bear an eerie similarity to AWilliamson, particularly The Bible and homosexuality and Homosexuality and Christianity; talk page blanking and misleading edit summaries are also trademark Williamson tactics.[6] He also performed a similar blanking that included the removal of a final block warning while marking the edit as minor.[7] Durova^Charge! 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the evidence you have collected is damning. I also have no problem in supporting a community ban.--Aldux 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Burn at the stake - erm, I mean I would also support banning this disruptive and time-consuming user. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far this is unanimous. Think the responses are enough to call a consensus? Much as I'd like to do the honors myself, since I am an involved editor it would be more appropriate for someone else to perform the ban. Then we could set up the suspected sockpuppets category. Who's got an itchy indef block finger today? Durova^Charge! 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support permaban. Sneaky hoaxers are scrouge of Wikipedia. Still I fear that somebody would have to monitor the related articles and block the puppets. Alex Bakharev 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A check of some of the allegations turns up the following.

• The most serious allegations revolved around the claim that the editor (or someone suspected of being the editor) was using a fanciful academic publication ("Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" within the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series") and a fanciful nonprofit organization ("Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies") to dishonestly include his own original research in Wikipedia. But a quick search finds the following entry at a government site which lists this organization as a registered nonprofit in good standing: search result
• And a search at Google Books finds the allegedly "bogus" book in print: http://books.google.com/books?ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Academy+%22Joan+of+Arc+Studies%22&as_brr=0
• A search at Google Scholar finds the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series" although only one item is currently indexed. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Joan+of+Arc%22+%22Primary+Sources+Series%22

The most serious allegations are therefore clearly mistaken and some of the other allegations were based on an erroneous understanding of the manner in which AOL IPs are assigned. The rest were I believe mostly or entirely related to allegations of POV-pushing or suspected sockpuppetry, which are more subjective. If people want to vote for a ban anyway then that's the decision. EReference 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

501c3 tax status is fairly easy to get and doesn't amount to validation of the content; I daresay some of these people were acting in good faith. I traded e-mails with Virginia Frohlick some years ago and she seemed very friendly, although she was much too quick to give credence to my assertions. She is, however, an amateur enthusiast who maintains a website[www.stjoan-center.com/] and the only Google Scholars entry for her is another publication from the same organization.[8] Likewise, the only Google Scholars return for Robert Wirth that does not appear to be incidental - there seems to be a medical doctor by the same name - is one of this organization's publications[9] (although this drew my interest briefly) For Margaret Walsh, the other claimed reviewer, there is a Margaret Walsh who is a professor of American economic and social history.[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Some of these names also turn up random returns in the hard sciences, dentistry, and medicine so I doubt these are the same person. It's been three months since I wrote the original summary and it doesn't particularly surprise me that this group has produced a hard copy edition of Williamson's study, but I see no reason to conclude that this nonprofit is anything other than the pet project of four people who have no formal expertise in their field. I could create a 501c3 organization with three friends, throw up a website, and print out a few copies of my pet theories - but that wouldn't make me an encyclopedic source. I'll post more on Williamson himself in a few moments. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For starters, here's Allen Williamson's Google Scholar result - you decide if he looks like a real historian.[15] On his original user page he claims to be a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc and her portion of the Hundred Years' War[16] and claims to be a historian in talk page posts[17] [18] [19] and at mediation[20] but, to my knowledge, never identified his academic qualifications or affiliations. At User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies the first question the talk page receives is from Adam Bishop to ask which Center for Medieval Studies this is. The question went unanswered and the account blanked similar questions from other editors without reply.[21] The account blanks other criticism without response[22] including a suspected sockpuppet template[23] and finally blanks all remaining material and redirects to both the user page and the talk page to a new account User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies.[24] [25] on 10 May 2006, one month after User:AWilliamson got blanked and redirected to User:AWilliamson..[26] [27] Assuming the anonymous AOL account is the same editor, here's a post where he manufactures a fraudulent citation and admits in the edit note that he chose the source because he thought I hadn't read it.[28] Well I had read that source and he thoroughly misrepresented it. There can't be room for good faith in this instance because I had objected to the relevant passage the previous day and transcribed a quotation coauthored by the same historian in a later publication that vigorously denied any such claim.[29] If other editors are curious about the subject details I'll go into those matters at my talk page - but to summarize this doesn't strike me as someone who's out of his depth but as someone whose every move is tainted by the need to advance his own peculiar opinions by any means necessary and who plays just as fast and loose with his sources as he does with Wikipedia's policies - so much so that I doubt he could pass peer review at any journal he didn't control. To be candid, I hold only a bachelor's degree in history from Columbia University (my graduate studies were in another field) and my interest in Joan of Arc is an amateur one (although serious enough that I have traveled France to follow her campaigns). Yet I know the standard reference works and I can recognize when someone cherry picks data and distorts information in bizarre ways. Challenge me for more evidence if you aren't convinced: this case is so complex that I've held back to conserve space. I welcome scrutiny because I want to know whether I'm right and I think I have enough facts to satisfy reasonable doubt. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to respond to all the topics you've raised, most of which are rather obscure. I'll post a reply later today or tomorrow. EReference 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This "book" by Allen Williamson is a great example of self-published scholarship. It's available in two flavors, print and pdf. On Amazon, the "book" costs a whopping $5.00, which means it's probably a bound print-off of the pdf. The title page lists not only the editor, but the names of two peer reviewers. In legitimate scholarship, peer reviewers are not given credit for the work--there's a reason they call it "double blind". This work definitely fails WP:RS, but if anyone has any doubts, Amazon still has 2 copies in stock--order now, and it will be delivered before Christmas! --Akhilleus (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I might as well add that the diff I showed for the IP's misuse of sources contained two fraudulent citations. His reference to Henry V's will is another bizarre distortion. What's insidious is how the reader has to know this material as well as the perpetrator to even challenge it. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have more time now. I guess I might as well cover several items in the same message since they're all interrelated.

Yesterday Akhilleus alleged that a certain book by this organization is not valid because the peer reviewers are listed. I don't think that's justified since this type of disclosure has in fact become more common in recent years for a number of academic publications. For example see the following guidelines here (see point 5 specifically) for an academic publication which lists the peer reviewers and accepting editors who recommended each article (only reviewers who rejected the work remain anonymous under their method).

The low price is not too unusual for smaller books, especially at Amazon.

Durova has brought up a number of subjects, mostly dealing with old debates and issues which are hard to follow. Some deal with the organization which you dispute.

For starters, let's look up the organization's website. On one page it lists at least fifteen members in two categories without listing whatever others there may be aside from these "recent" ones. You had said the total was only four people. Googling the listed names finds that Stephen Richey authored at least one published book on Joan of Arc. François Janvier is evidently an official at the CAOA in the Department of the Meuse, France. François Thouvenin seems to be a translator with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Others could be Googled if I had time. The website also lists a publisher's ISBN prefix, which is definitely not cheap to buy. It lists an Employer Identification Number, a SAN, several ISSNs (which might take months to obtain from the Library of Congress) and a list of current or upcoming publications which include subjects such as military records, government docs, a "transcription of BNF fr 4488 ff 463-476" and a bunch of other stuff. This clearly extends beyond four people with one pdf file, I think. Remember that this ultimately comes back to the allegation that a dishonest editor had created or invented a bogus org so he could insert his own stuff into the article. A bit of searching indicates that this is wrong.

Your objections to the people themselves have been of two types. One was based on a search for their names at Google Scholar, which is likely to be unreliable for several reasons. It looks like you initially didn't find the organization's publications there either although at least some of them do show up if you use certain keywords. It's also the case that Google Scholar is hardly exhaustive. The other argument was based on the assumption that certain anonymous IPs or accounts here are disguises for one of the members (which would be hard to prove). You assume that certain edits by these anons were deliberately made in bad faith and therefore undermine the person's credibility as a historian. In one case this was because (if I understand correctly) you believe he misrepresented an author's position with regard to specific pieces of evidence. After looking over the links to the old edits you provided it looks to me like the two of you were arguing about rather different issues (an author's mention of a document versus an author's view of a theory related to that document) and therefore misunderstanding each other. Here's why I think that. Looking at the first link you provided, we see him adding citations for two books which quote or mention some historical documents he was using to back up one of his own theories. Now, his edit comment specifically says he's citing a book by Pernoud because Pernoud "mentions this document" (he doesn't say Pernoud supports it) which his text lower down specifies is a letter from "the University of Paris.. to John of Luxembourg" which was among several documents which he said supported his theory that "Charles or his faction" attempted to save Joan of Arc. The other link you provided leads to your rebuttal which you based on a quote from one of Pernoud's other books in which Pernoud casts doubt on this theory and questions the reliability of the "Morosini" records... but it seems that neither of those two issues were the point. He wasn't saying Pernoud's book supported his theory but rather that this book by Pernoud "mentions" the University of Paris letter. This is "original research" on the anon's part but not dishonesty. You state that these rather ambiguous matters would undermine a specific real person's scholarly credentials ... which would not be the case even assuming that he was genuinely the anon in the first place.

You also objected to a comment the anon made about Henry V's will in the same link. As far as I can see this refers to footnote 3 in that text in which he argues (I'm summarizing here) that the decision to keep Joan of Arc as a prisoner rather than letting her be "allowed ransom" was similar to previous cases in which important prisoners were also retained in this way. He gives as an example the case of Henry V retaining "the duke of Orléans" according to a statement given in Henry's will. You didn't say why you object to this, but I'll do my best to try to figure it out. Is it inaccurate to say that the duke of Orleans was retained as a prisoner by Henry V ? Or as with the other disputed Pernoud citation are you objecting to the reference to Pernoud because perhaps Pernoud may have disagreed with this theory as was the case with the other one? Since this reference to Pernoud's book occurs in the middle of the sentence right after the mention of Henry V's will but before any mention of the theory which compares the two cases, he doesn't seem to be attributing the theory itself to Pernoud but only the claim that Henry V's will ordered the duke of Orleans to be kept a prisoner. But I'm grasping at straws here to guess the specific objection since I don't think you stated the problem. At least not in your last note. EReference 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite the practice of the Digital Medievalist, it is not common to disclose peer reviewers in most academic publications. Nor is it common for an association to publish original material that's authored by one member of the association and "peer reviewed" by two of the other members. This is a self-publishing house that isn't following standard academic rules. That's not surprising, because its members/contributors aren't academics--Chris Snidow and Catherine Hénon are musicians and tour guides (or perhaps I should say pilgrims?); Kevin Hendryx is, according to his webpage, "an editor, is a freelance writer by night, and ... loves Tolkien, the Beatles, and Joan of Arc..."; and Bob Perler apparently enjoyed the 2004 pilgrimage guided by Snidow and Henon. I'm sure that all of these people have a strong and sincere interest in Joan, but they don't have the credentials we expect from people who are running a research institute or academic press. At the risk of publicizing too much personal information (even though it's accesible through brief searching on the web), I'll note that the organization is headquartered at the residence of one of the members of the "academy", which is another indication that this isn't an academic organization.

By the way, ISBNs are not cheap, but they're not astronomical, either; a person could get a few contributors together to cover the cost, apply for 501c3 status, and voila, you have an "academy" that issues publications and a journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The four people I listed were the four named in connection with this particular publication. As I stated before, some of them may have acted in good faith. My original summary was written three months ago, at which time the organization had no other members, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get something more serious off the ground. An author who self-publishes may have partners and a larger goal of building a real publishing firm.

My earlier post traces a history of unethical behavior by Williamson and his probable sockpuppets in which he consistently attempts to put himself forward as more authoritative than he actually is. To address the two specific instances of misused citations:

• Henry V's will To explain why this is worse than garden variety OR requires background knowledge, a good deal of which I can demonstrate through the same book that Williamson cites. Henry V died seven years before Joan of Arc entered public life.(168, 266) That will did forbid any ransom of Charles I de Valois, Duke of Orléans but did not in any way extend that prohibition into some general rule against ransoming prisoners.(193) Ransoms were one of the principal ways of profiting at war and the English accepted other war ransoms for French prisoners.(172, 190) The duke of Orléans was a special case because at the time of Henry V's death this duke was second in line to inherit the throne of France according to the Valois claim. This duke's son would later become king of France when the older line died out.(196) Henry V claimed legal right to inherit the French crown and had solidified his claim through marriage and treaty,(3) so his prohibition against this particular ransom had everything to do with dynastic succession and nothing to do with Joan of Arc: Henry V wanted to bequeath rulership of France to his infant son. Furthermore - even if by some stretch of the imagination this will did apply to her - Williamson claims this document held legal force in Burgundy, which it didn't. The English alliance with Philip III, Duke of Burgundy was not even a very cordial one.(170)
• Attempts to ransom Joan of Arc As my other diff demonstrates, there weren't any such attempts. Far from what Williamson tries to represent about Charles VII's actions, "cowardly abandonment" is the standard interpretation of his behavior while she was a prisoner.(167) Williamson's citation of a delegation from the University of Paris is completely misleading: Paris was not under control of the French king at this time and its university was solidly pro-English. The University of Paris endorsed the charges against Joan of Arc during her trial and many of her judges had some prior connection to that university.(125-126, 207-217) The delegation from the University of Paris that Williamson mentions is not any action on behalf of the French king - to make that implication in this context is absurd - and Morosini's rumor mill was unreliable: in August of the same year Morosini thought that Joan of Arc had escaped.(99)

To summarize, Williamson has been laying traps for the uninformed. This is someone who knows exactly what he's doing and who sets out to fool people. One of his own edit summaries admits that he selected citations because he believed they were out of my depth. Before I joined the project he had successfully disrupted one of Wikipedia's core biographies for a year because - I think I can use a strong term without exaggeration - his other crankery actually was beyond the depth of previous editors. He constructs sophisticated exercises in contextomy while giving them a veneer of plausibility and the above two examples are by no means the only offenses. The good faith assumptions of editors such as EReference account for much of why I waited so long to raise this matter: as absurd as Williamson's claims really are, Wikipedia has at most a handful of editors who know this material in sufficient depth to challenge it on its own terms. So I had to build my own reputation for editing, investigations, and integrity before my charge could be taken seriously. If Wikipedia were a university I would have referred him for formal academic discipline in November 2005. While this assault on Wikipedia's credibility is significant, my real concern is for the students who relied upon us while his edits stood. At best, those students' time was wasted. More likely their grades suffered. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see there's another round of allegations here to sift through and try to analyze. I would ask both of you to please read through the whole thing before thinking of replying. Maybe we can finally bring at least this one part of the matter to a close.

Akhilleus' post was first. I have to say that I've been confused by your statements here. I'm curious whether you also reject other publications which disclose peer reviewers? Remember that your original accusation held that this was an unethical practice, not merely that it was uncommon. Clearly some journals use that method (uncommon as it is) without being accused of an ethics violation, do they not?

You have now added the related allegation that this publication should be taken to task for using peer reviewers who belong to the same association. I may be mistaken, but doesn't (for instance) the Journal of the American Medical Association include articles in which both the author(s) and peer reviewers belong to the American Medical Association? My understanding is that they do, without being considered suspect. I think that's also the case with many small, narrowly focused organizations, isn't it? Your statement on this matter repeated the view that this is an "uncommon" practice, which is debatable but again it isn't the issue.

You objected to some of the members, for example by describing Chris Snidow as a musician and tour guide. It doesn't take much searching to find that Chris Snidow has a published book on Joan of Arc which was given the endorsement of a person who is a familiar name from one of Durova's links, Marie-Veronique Clin. Now, in Durova's link Marie-Veronique Clin was described as the co-author of a book which Durova was using as a source. Clin therefore would apparently be someone whose endorsement of Snidow's book would be significant, I would assume? Your characterization of Chris Snidow clearly is unfair I think. If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging.

With all due respect, what I've been seeing here frankly seems to be a case in which arguments continually shift ground whenever one assumption is shown to be mistaken after closer examination. There has also been a great deal of speculation which assumes the very worst about all of the people connected with this organization without any verifiable evidence to substantiate that assumption. I'll assume you are acting in good faith but it's becoming more difficult to maintain that view when you repeatedly refuse to do likewise for the increasingly larger and larger circle of people you're trying to discredit.

Next is Durova's post, which sought to explain a few previous allegations.

You addressed the issue of the organization's membership. You said that when you had written the first allegation three months ago the org had no one except the four members who are listed in one of their pdf files. Their site mentions other members being brought in far earlier than that, such as Stephen Richey who came in more than a year ago. The rest of your comments consisted of speculation about their motives. You assume they are acting in bad faith (or worse) based mainly it seems on the following issues concerning the anon. I'll now look at those.

You first addressed the anon's handling of Henry V's will and the Duke of Orleans. You said the anon claimed that Henry's will held "legal force in Burgundy", therefore he was claiming that it directly affected Joan of Arc's circumstances. In the link you provided he never said anything like this. What he did say was the following. He said important prisoners were sometimes retained and he gave the case of the Duke of Orleans as one example which was rather similar to Joan of Arc's case. He never said that one case provided the legal basis for the other. It seems his point was that Joan of Arc was important enough that her enemies didn't want to allow her to obtain her freedom either. In your recent note you seemingly argued against this by saying that the Duke of Orleans was a "special case" who was retained only because he was so important, which makes it sound as if you're implying that Joan of Arc wasn't important enough to be retained like this Duke was. Didn't she have a significant effect on the war, much more than the relatively obscure Duke of Orleans in fact? Whatever their relative importance was, I can't find any statements from the anon saying what you thought he said. It's common in internet debates for misunderstandings to arise, and I think that's what happened in this case. Unless you feel he was dishonest for saying that Joan of Arc was likely considered too important to be allowed her freedom, I guess I don't understand why you charge him with dishonesty.

You then addressed the anon's handling of Charles VII's actions. You said (in summary) that the anon's citation of a letter from the University of Paris cannot be accepted as valid evidence of Charles VII's actions because this University was pro-English rather than pro-French and therefore could not have been acting on Charles VII's behalf. In the link you provided the anon never claimed this University was acting on Charles VII's behalf but rather that the University's letter mentions actions taken by Charles VII's government. The latter is not the same thing as the former. A letter can describe actions undertaken by an enemy ruler even though the letter's authors do not support him. I guess I don't understand how you're reading something different into this passage.

You then again charged him with dishonesty which you said was sufficient to undermine his credentials and credibility, which is a little hard to fathom. I'm sure you know that in order to make an allegation of this type against a real person by name you would need very substantial proof and there is no proof here. He clearly doesn't seem to be saying what you attribute to him, and it's an anonymous editor saying it.

You criticized me (and unnamed others) for our "good faith assumptions" about the anon and this organization but with all due respect I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see these allegations as anything other than a series of misunderstandings at best. We all tend to jump to conclusions in heated internet debates. Sometimes it's best to step back a bit.

A ban based on charges of sockpuppetry against whoever is behind the accounts might be justifiable, but all these other allegations against quite a sizable group of named individuals and their organization are frankly rather disturbing. If I had unlimited time and patience I could continue sifting through more of this type of thing, but since all the previous allegations have turned out quite clearly to be mistaken I would suggest it would be better to drop this portion of the matter. This has long since gone beyond a productive stage, especially since a siteban could be pursued by other means. EReference 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

EReference, you raise a lot of points, most of which I won't respond to. However, you're slightly misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that disclosing peer reviewers was "unethical", I said that what the publication did--not only disclosing peer reviewers, but using "peer reviewers" who are members of the organization, is not typical academic practice and wouldn't be done in legitimate scholarship. There's two reasons: first, the publication seems to be giving them credit as co-authors, but more importantly, these "peer reviewers" are not independent of the publisher. If you want to use the AMA as an analogy, what the "academy" is doing is like the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association writing an article and submitting it to two members of the editorial board for "peer review". If that article were published, you'd have no confidence that an independent assessment of the article's quality had been performed. Similarly, we shouldn't have any confidence that Virginia Frohlick and Margaret Walsh performed an impartial assessment of this publication, since they are members of the association that published the book--this is elementary conflict-of-interest stuff.

Whether or not other publications disclose the names of peer reviewers is less important than the fact that Frohlick and Walsh are not independent peer reviewers. However, I note that the Digital Medievalist is not a historical journal, but a journal about the use of technology in studying history--its practice isn't directly relevant to how peer review is used in historical scholarship. It's more relevant to look at journals like the American Historical Review or the Journal of Medieval History, neither of which, I believe, disclose the names of referees. The Journal of the American Medical Association does disclose peer reviewers, but doesn't associate them with particular articles.

A more important issue than peer review is that none of the members of the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies have the credentials we expect in a historical academy (association). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even one of these members/contributors has an advanced degree in history or a related field, or a position at a college or university. We have seen evidence that they're amateur historians and devotees of Joan--this is fine, but the format of their publications is clearly designed to make readers think that they're getting the same kind of product they'd get from a university press, and that, I think, is misleading at best.

Chris Snidow's book is no evidence that this is a legitimate academic organization. Rather the opposite--the book is a print-on-demand work which you can order from iUniverse.com. This is self-publishing, which fails WP:RS. Snidow's book hardly gives me any confidence that the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies is a reputable academic publisher, academy, or (association).

You wrote: "If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging." I don't understand what you're implying. Could you spell it out, please? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...sigh... I was hoping we wouldn't have a repeat of previous allegations without much substance to back them up, but that is seemingly what has happened again. And it's late. I'm hoping my fatigue will excuse any mistakes or apparent irritability.

Akhilleus, you have repeated many of your previous charges against these people without addressing my comments very much. To reduce tedious repetition to a minimum I'll just cover the following topics. You stated that you aren't making allegations of unethical behavior but then proceeded to do precisely that by claiming that this publication violates basic standards of scholarship. The "conflict of interest" allegation and hypothetical analogy given to illustrate it was insufficient for many reasons. Among these would be the fact that the author in this case did not also serve as the editor (as in your analogy) and more significantly you entirely sidestepped the point I had made about JAMA's similar practice of publishing articles in which the author and peer reviewers all belong to the AMA. In other words, if you applied your argument consistently you would need to also dismiss the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most respected publications in any field. Rather than addressing this you instead switched the topic to JAMA's disclosure of peer reviewers, which was not the issue. Worse yet, you alleged that the publication was listing peer reviewers as "co-authors" whereas on the contrary the publication states otherwise by clearly labeling them peer reviewers. If you want me to view this as a good faith discussion then you need to stop doing this. You also need to show that your objections can be applied consistently. Namely, if you're going to reject this publication because the author and peer reviewers are members of the same association then you also need to reject JAMA and many others for doing the same. Do you reject JAMA because their authors and peer reviewers often all belong to the AMA? I think this is probably an important point.

The allegations you have raised against the people are again based on unsupported speculation. You ignored the members I had already noted who clearly do possess more standard credentials or positions. You sidestepped the point I had raised about Chris Snidow's book having been endorsed by someone who apparently is (correct me if I'm mistaken) a respected author and perhaps recognized authority in the field since one of Durova's links to a previous discussion uses one of her books as an apparently authoritative work on the subject (please correct me if I've missed something here). The publishing method for Snidow's book would not appear to be relevant because the book's content and the expert endorsement it received would not be outweighed by this factor or other objections you have raised.

There may well be some problems with this group but this current discussion isn't accomplishing anything. Nor is it directly related to the siteban issue, so I think it's time to move on. EReference 09:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

EReference, I haven't addressed most of your comments because I don't believe they're germane. For instance, it doesn't matter whether Snidow's book has been endorsed by Clin--it's still self-published, it still fails WP:RS, and it in no way establishes that Snidow has an advanced degree in history or a position at a college or university. Similarly, nothing you've said about the other members of the Historical Association (Academy) for Joan of Arc Studies (HAJAS) has established that they have advanced degrees in history (or a related field) or positions at a college or university. The only member of the group that has a significant publication on Joan that's widely known among historians, Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have an advanced degree. To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association. They are, rather, enthusiasts and amateurs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur, but the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS.

Here's the byline on Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing: "Robert Wirth (editor), Virginia Frohlick (peer review), Margaret Walsh (peer review), Allen Williamson (authorial contribution and translation)". These credits imply collective authorship. Frohlick and Walsh are listed after an editor and before an author/translator; to me, this looks like they're getting equal credit for producing the work with Wirth and Williamson, i.e., they're basically co-authors. If I were to list this work in a bibliography, it would appear as "Wirth, Robert, ed., and Virginia Frohlick, Margaret Walsh, and Allen Williamson. 'Primary Sources...'", etc. If the intent is simply to acknowledge that Frohlick and Walsh were only peer reviewers and not authors, they should be listed in a separate line, or acknowledged in a footnote--most journal articles that I've read recently thank the anonymous referees in the first or last footnote of the article (and in all of those cases the referees remain anonymous, as in this article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies). An additional point that needs to be raised is that since neither Frohlick nor Walsh have formal expertise in this field, there's no indication that they're qualified to perform peer review--we have no way of knowing whether they're familiar with scholarship on Joan of Arc or historical method in general.

What you're saying about the AMA is ridiculous. It's obvious why it's ok for ordinary members of the AMA to author and referee articles that appear in JAMA--they're not directly connected with the editorial board of the journal or the administration of the AMA. In contrast, Walsh is the president of HAJAS, Frohlick is Secretary-Treasurer, and Williamson is "Founding Director". If the president or founding director of the AMA published an article in JAMA and it was refereed by the secretary-treasurer, I think most people would see a problem. Now imagine if none of them had an M.D., yet the article were about the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. I think you'd lose some faith in the editorial standards of JAMA at that point...

Failing to meet the standards of legitimate scholarship isn't necessarily unethical. As Durova stated, most of the members of HAJAS are probably acting in good faith; but since they aren't professional scholars, they're unaware of the standards that should be met. However, if someone is aware of the proper editorial processes in publishing professional work in history, including peer review, and still presents HAJAS is a legitimate academic publisher, then I'd say there's a potential ethical problem. That's just one of the things Editor X is accused of. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's pretty frickin' impressive, Durova. I definitely support both a community ban and your actions here. Good job. Let's take this misinformationist down once and for all. ♠PMC♠ 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova did a lot of hard work, but my analysis has indicated that much of it was probably honest misinterpretation or was in various degrees unsupportable, as happens with all of us in this type of endeavor. She should certainly be commended for her anti-vandalism efforts though. EReference 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

further out of wikipedia contact

Ok, I reported on this once before [30]. If you want to read the completed consensus on it, it's here: [31] (last diff I found on the topic). Well, the guy is back and still sending me emails to join social/dating/contact networks by email. I'm getting sick of this. Can something be done about this? I've told him twice to stop.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really see this as a matter for action on Wikipedia. Morwen - Talk 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to see how it isn't. The person in question is using the Wikipedia email function to spam. Swat, have you tried simply listing the person's email address in a spam filter? JoshuaZ 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not my reading of the note, particularly the previous report. It seems they have obtained this person's address, and are spamming them privately or are feeding their email address into dating sites as an "invite your friend" type feature. Morwen - Talk 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is a very interesting case. May I ask how often you are getting these emails? In your previous post you said 3 in a month, which doesn't sound like much. Also consider that the offender might not even be aware of what he's doing: sometimes social-network sites have people upload the address book from their email client, which can include everyone they've ever sent mail to. You might be one of hundreds or even thousands, who knows. It's also (sadly) possible that the user may have been the victim of a virus or trojan which harvested your address and is now being used for spam. Obviously it's upsetting you if you're posting here about it, so I'm trying to think of a good solution. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I got another one today, this one asks me for my birthday. The one yesterday asked me for my address. I've gotten 5 in the past month or so. And no, he's not been infected with a trojan because he's adding in a personalized message "Hello this is mohammed salim khan from dherai swat, pakistan", which fits in with he user pages. Morwen: I think it is a wikipedia problem, because he is using the email function on wikipedia to gain my response and then using it for unwanted personal contact. That's a huge potential loophole for phishers/scammers, to email editors here with a seemingly valid question, and then use the responding addresses and spam them. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, he's already got your email address, right? So if we ban him, and stop him from using the email facility, and indeed remove your email from the site, then he's still got your email address and can continue to spam you? I don't mean to seem unsympathetic here, but what sort of action do you expect us to take? If I am misunderstanding the situation, and you never replied to one, he doesn't have your address and is still sending these things through the wikipedia's "e-mail" function, then we may be able to do something. Morwen - Talk 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what action you're supposed to take. That's why I brought it up here, to get some sort of ideas. I can eventually get the spam filters to recognize his name and they'll block it out, but what's to stop him from doing it again through a different account? It's a policy issue that needs to be addressed because it's a potentially dangerous loophole. So I'm bringing it up here, because it's an incident, and it's something that requires administrator attention. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want us to warn someone, block someone, delete something or protect something? If so, this is the right place for it. If not, then it needs to go to developers or possibly the community at large for discussion on what we want to ask the developers to do. Morwen - Talk 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Morwen, I'm here because I don't know what the policy is regarding out of wikipedia harrassment. I think that an official warning at the minimum is in order, though it's up to the administrators which user it would go to, because he has something like 8 user accounts (which I've posted about here before). If there's a way to disable the Special:emailuser function for his accounts, that's actually the best way. However, I'm asking here what the policy is. This is an incident. It requires administrator attention. Hence, here. (Note, I think it should go to the developers as well, but that doesn't preclude action here). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think SWATJester has a valid point here; if people are phishing via Wikipedia email, in any form, then we have a problem. Just because we don't have a policy yet doesn't mean that we should pretend that it's not a problem if it happens. I don't know what the right answer is; it could range from "be careful who you respond to WP email from" as a user warning, to blocking or banning any WP account found to be doing this, with quite a range in between. But it's worth starting a policy discussion about. This is probably not the right place, but figuring out where the right place is, and asking if there's an informal consensus for doing something on a preliminary basis, are reasonable here. Georgewilliamherbert 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a way to change the e-mail function to hide people's e-mail addresses from one another? So I e-mail you, you can't see my e-mail address but you can click the e-mail link from my userpage to reply? This might be an issue for the Village Pump. Grandmasterka 10:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User: BooyakaDell, sock of user:JB196?

User:JB196 was banned in September for edit warring over tags and creating conflicts on numerous pages that have to do with professional wrestling. He continued to vandalized pages as an anonymous user to the point that some articles had to be semi-protected several times over. User:BooyakaDell registered in Mid-November, and has virtually the same modus operandi, editwarring over tags and adding PROD's to wrestling articles he thinks are not notable (not a valid reason for PROD'ing on several articles). Due to length of time between original user being banned, and this possible sockpuppet account being created, checkuser was not an option, although there is still a suspected sockpuppet account page. Any suggestions? Thanks! SirFozzie 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with this, and thanks for adding the incident, Fozzie! If my view is worth anything, I believe that this is definitely User:JB196. For those who are interested, I put a note about this in W:RFI (I think that's the right acronym!) as well under section 4 (registered users). Curse of Fenric 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on my talk page (am Adopter of BooyakaDell - WP:ADOPT) - User talk:Lethaniol. For the record I don't think that dealing with the Sockpuppet case is the way to go - as a Checkuser has proved not workable - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196. Cheers Lethaniol 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I must note that BooyakaDell signs posts the same way as JB196 did, with no space between the full stop and the signature (i.e. This.–– Lid^(Talk) 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)) which along with the MO seems to be more evidence of sockpuppetry. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is growing. Thanks for that observation, lid. I consider the checkuser situation to be irrelevant. If BooyakaDell is behaving in the same way as JB196, he should be treated the same way - sockpuppet or otherwise. Curse of Fenric 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

After having his claims of non-notability soundly dismissed on Glamour Boy Shane and Thunder(wrestler), BooyayaDell has start adding as many other tags as possible, in the same way JB196 used to do [32] 81.155.178.248 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick

• Moby_Dick (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick (clarification)
• Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick
• commons:Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick

I'd like to have a second opinion on this. Is the recent edit of Moby Dick a violation of the arbcom remedies (also mind the clarification)? This was his first edit since November 13 2006.

On November 12-13 he was same time active on commons and he wasn't uploading images. Instead his focus seemed to be me. Aside from that he wasn't active at all since august neither here on en.wiki or on commons.wiki.

--Cat out 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well? --Cat out 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would constitute "harassing or stalking" you unless he continues with more posts. One post of "makes for interesting reading!" doesn't seem to be either harrassment or stalking. Anyone else want to comment? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment would be right to any new/old user without the arbcom remedies Moby has. Besides that was his first edit for roughly a month. He is stalking me unless he had accidentally stumbled on my talk page. --Cat out 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He might also, reasonably, have read this page. His comment is right below your link (which included his name). How is it "stalking" to respond to a post naming him? Particularly since, as you say, "that was his first edit for roughly a month"? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:50, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Still advocating moby dick huh? Have a read of WP:TROLL essay. You have been blocked for this behavior on commons indefinitely for it [33].

--Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out the above omitted possibility is "advocacy"? And such "advocacy" is a blockable offense? According to this, the block is "For making threats against Cool Cat and others," but nobody's specified, let alone cited, "what threats?", only announced that this repeated question is being ignored, so the false and defamatory charge has been left up going on three weeks now, with no right of rebuttal. How strange. Yet two of the people endorsing this action are running for Stewards; what a lovely prospect for dispute resolutions all over the Wikis. And to think this current furore started with you repeatedly blanking Moby's user page, then trying to get him blocked for asking you to stop. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:56, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

What are the odds of a person who is completely inactive to be checking the RfAr page. Theoraticaly it is possible of course. He could be watching my talk page as well. These are all plasuable ways to 'stalk' a person. Regardless, its something he is prohibited from doing. He is merely tricking the system as he had been doing for months (nearly two years if you count Davenbelle).

--Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"What are the odds of a person who is completely inactive to be checking the RfAr page" ? It seems like a reasonable precaution for someone who's seen new accusations made against him in an attempt to block him (for complaining when his user page was repeatedly blanked, as noted and linked above). – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:41, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Well if you guys are so in love with moby dicks contribution, I am out of here. --Cat out 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think users are in love w/ MD. They've just given their views after checking the edits. MD's edit on your talk page is a comment to your medical emergency (rfar #2). Just forget about the issue unless he deliberately harrass you. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He has a record of deliberately harassing me. That is his entire contribution with the exception of very few minor edits. That very link explains the arbitration hearing. He is practically taunting me... I can legally link to any arbitration hearing of my choice at my convinance. Check both his commons and en.wiki contribution and you will see a preoccupation with me.

Let me ask this in a different way, if you were under the remedies moby dick is under, would you be doing what moby is doing?

--Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He surely has a record and the ArbCom enforcement of ban on harassment was a result of that same record. However, his edit on your talk page is not a de facto harrassement. He's just commented on something related to his case. You were discussing the Starfleet Security issue and made and you made an analogy between what was happening in the article and MD's case. Note that MD hasn't been involved neither in editing the article nor in the AfD. So the question is why did you have to refer to his case while discussing another issue. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The person I was talking to (hustnoc) was feeling harassed so I asked him to review my past arbcom case about harassment so he can compare his and that case. Obviously he isn't 'stalked' if you compare it to my case... Discussion was not even about moby dick and his nick is only visible if someone looks at the source. --Cat out 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So his simply looking at your talk page wouldn't give away that you were discussing his case. So much for the idea that he was stalking you. But either searching on the string "arbitration/Moby_Dick" (here restricted to user-talk-space to shorten the list) or looking at the RfAr link page would show him that page. You've just cleared him. Thanks. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:28, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Unilateral action by Cool Cat's loyal supporter Bastique

Now, without saying a word here, Bastique has blocked Moby Dick citing as "harrassment of Cool Cat":

1. the above cited remark (but note the above consensus, Moby was responding to his own name being brought up); and
2. Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (Bastique does not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
3. Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.

Note that where Bastique did log this block, he did not even bother to sign it, Khoikhoi had to add the ID tag an hour later.

This is the same Bastique who nominated Cool Cat for Commons admin [34], and has since then defended him from repeated complaints of admin abuse – CC restoring his own postings deleted for policy violations, or CC repeatedly blanking and even protecting his target's user page – as merely "errors of judgment" [35] [36]... while cautioning or even threatening to block those who bring up these complaints [same cites], so complaining of admin abuse is clearly a much more severe offense than the admin abuse itself.

This is the same Bastique – the same paragon of fairness, of impartiality, of avoiding any conflict of interest, of recusing himself as admin from disputes in which he has personal loyalties – who is now a leading candidate for Steward.

Think what we all have to look forward to, in Wiki-wide standards of dispute resolution. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:31, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

You know... Trolling me is one thing, people hate me anyways... But trolling Bastique... --Cat out 07:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked at how Commons admins behave. Bastique, what the hell? People with valid concerns about Cool Cat are being blocked out of Commons, and can't do anything about it now. This.. is wrong. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Two trolls! Oh, that is twice the fun! --Cat out 08:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned, you trolled Cool Cat on Commons, and you weren't blocked. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, whatever beefs yall have with the Commons, take it there or privately, not hash it out in here where most admins have little to no control at what happens at the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you've missed the detail that the same cluster of Commons admins who've shown such mutual support and solidarity there are now doing so here on Wikipedia, such as one summarily blocking another's critic (without a hearing or opportunity for defense), rather than properly recusing himself from admin actions in disputes where his personal loyalties are involved. That's unbefitting conduct. It's admin abuse.

Besides, how can anyone "take it to Commons" if they're blocked there (on false accusations, without a hearing or opportunity for defense) and their protests in talkspace are simply ignored? As you know. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:09, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

How many images have you uploaded to commons? What has your entire contribution been? Well? --Cat out 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Bastique has altered Moby's endorsement to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list – in effect, Bastique destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. So another effect of his blocking Moby was to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to the deletion. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:09, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

FYI, Moby Dick had been blocked per an arbcom ruling, which Bastique reported at the right place. User:Bryan Tong Minh 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "harassment of Cool Cat" – but Bastique has done so anyway; just as Cool Cat claimed "harassment" on Wikipedia over the complaint on Commons that CC had repeatedly blanked and even protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.

No neutral admin chose to declare the above-cited posts "harassment" in open discussion, or to block Moby. Bastique declared them such elsewhere, in a post he wouldn't even sign his own name to. And Bastique is not a neutral admin. His alliance on Commons with Cool Cat shows that.

It is my impression that admins should recuse themselves from admin-powered intervention in disputes where they have personal loyalty to one disputant, not use those admin powers against the other disputant. That raises questions of fairness and impartiality, versus conflicts of interest. I hope you agree with that much.

If a block was appropriate, it should not have been enacted by one of Cool Cat's cronies. And it would have been nice to see some consensus-seeking that harassment was indeed occurring, especially since (as noted above) consensus on the first item was that it wasn't harassing Cool Cat... while the second and third items were being supportive of Elanagirl on the RfC and her talk page – and if that constitutes harassing Cool Cat (because CC opposes her), then how many other people are equally guilty of it? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 09:48, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I find your attitude most interesting. I do not believe Bastique is loyal to me. No one is my Pokémon here. --Cat out 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know the history here, but SAJordan has some points here that concern me. I really find it a stretch to classify Moby's actions as harassment. I'm also concerned that Bastique is not completely impartial regarding Cool Cat and it would be better to have the claim of harassment evaluated by another admin. I am tempted to reduce the block period as blocking for a week for those edits following five months of apprarently problem-free behavior is an overreaction. In fact, I don't see any behavior here warranting a block at all. However, as I'm unfamiliar with all the details of this case I have not modified the block, but I do find Bastique's block concerning. If any other admins are familiar with the arbitration case involving Cool Cat and Mody Dick I would appreciate additional perspective on Bastique's block. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want perspective... Think of a person contesting all your actions on every vote you participate and every article you edit. Practically everything you do this person follows you around. Thats what Moby dick did to me (as per arbcom hearing). Thats why arbcom (redundently since its prohibited behaviour anyways) prohibited him from stalking (harrasing) me. He was told explicity to avoid running into me on votes at a later clarification. Now after a long break he returned to his routine. This non-contributor should have been indef blocked long ago for disruption.

Bastique made a sensible decision and blocked him. Bastique is not my pet pokémon and it is extremely disrespectful for people to argue that he is. I do not understand why people are taking SAJordan's comments seriously.

--Cat out 11:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I would still like some perspective from an impartial party. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I qualify as impartial, but I am able to answer Cool Cat's question as to why people are listening to SA Jordan. He has not nominated WP:CIVIL for deletion. You have, in clear violation of just about every rule in the book and some that aren't. Your block log does not exactly endear trust, either. Moreschi 12:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He is still a toll and have been blocked indefinitely from commons for it. I know that makes him an archangel in comparation since we value trolls above anything else on wikipedia. --Cat out 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; also WP:POT. You are in no position to call anyone a troll. Moreschi 12:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure I am. I have already done so. Moby Dick is indeed a troll. I welcome anyone to contest this. SAJordan is also a troll. I also welcome anyone to contest it.

I do not believe you are in any reason to be here. Why is the deletion cabal complaining about me nominating something for deletion?

--Cat out 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can both of you please mind WP:CIVIL (especially as it has not yet been deleted), and avoid the ad hominem remarks. My concerns raised by SAJordan's comments have to do with the content of his comments, not with who is making them. Please try to keep this discussion focused on the issues. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Doug. But if you ever do feel curious about what Cool Cat considers "trolling", please feel free to check out my Commons contrib history, all of 12 edits over 1¼ days, two of those edits being my user and talk pages, the rest being here. Here (moved from RfA main page) is the link I followed to get there, posted by Cool Cat on Wikipedia to charge harassment when he was accused of admin abuse on Commons; and you'll see my comments there too. Here is the announcement of my indef-blocking "For making threats against Cool Cat and others" — what, you didn't see any threats in what I wrote? Neither did I. Here is where I kept asking "What threats?" and could never get a straight answer. Happy reading, if you ever get around to it... and I'd enjoy learning your opinion. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 20:56, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Frankly, SAJordan's actions should be considered trolling. He is persistently entering the same four or five links, over, and over and over again, just in case you missed it the first six or seven times. Please read User talk:SAJordan for my opinion about that. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I left a remark on SAJordan's talk page, to which he had not responded. I only just became aware of this thread, brimming full with accusations and innuendo by SAJordan today.

He likes to link only to the diffs that matter. Try moving forward or backward in history on each of those diffs. You'll find quite a broader picture of events.

I stand by my block of Moby Dick. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick's first contribution in weeks was to post a snide comment on the talk page of a user which he had been prohibited from stalking or harassing. This was not some ordinary intersection of contributions that might have happened to accidentally bring him to User:Cool Cat's talk page, after which User:Moby Dick might have posted some spiteful comment, which nevertheless would itself have been problematic; instead, User:Moby Dick's first stop on Wikipedia after coming back was to visit User:Cool Cat's talk page and comment on a matter totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia. I do not know what is happening on Commons, but on the English Wikipedia User:Moby Dick was not acting in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Remedies and may have been going so far as to flout it. —Centrx→talk • 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the other two User:Moby Dick comments, [37] and [38], this is in direct violation of the Arbcom ruling, and is in contempt of it. —Centrx→talk • 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:KPbIC

I really don't know where to begin on this one, but I just want to keep in mind that this conflict is nowhere new, yet it has for a while remained dormant...until today. Anyway in the past there has been many incidents when this user, has repeatedly stalked on my edits and in some cases it came to pure trolling... like these three edits on Kryvyi Rih Metrotram [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] before the article was protected. On demand I can provide at least thirty examples where he stalked on my edits like that, and as this one shows, he did it (and at times continues to) by using a dynamic IP to avoid blockage...it really reached its peak moment on Maladzyechna this example is a showcase of just how ridiculous this user can be. Originally it was about getting rid of a title that was inputed by a user who was not aware of wiki policies and functions. I moved it back to the translit version Maladzechna [44]. Like any stalker would do so, he went straight at it and reverted. That begun a four month dispute where I went on all possible attempts, including WP:CYR that was (and now is) to be a guideline for article titles...And I got the most stubborn resistance one has ever seen (relevant link). Even after you had Belarusian users with professional linguistic knowledge supporting, and when it eventually came to a point where no one would challenge on which title the article should rest, he went on link resisting the change... In the end we did move the page...and the word Maladzechna became Maladyechna... That's right four months of his stubborn resistance just to add a y... Does one laugh or cry about this?

Now then October/November he is absent on wikipedia. But, recentely he has returned, and really I just do not like knowing that every single edit of mine, particulary on sensitive articles is bound to get reverted by him w/o any consensus or discussion... Really its annoyance more than anything... However there is a WP:STALK policy which clearly dictates that such behaivour is unacceptable, regardless of what form my edits happen to be. So I decided let it be sooner than later, and managed to set a trap for him. If one can go to my contribs [45], then all edits between 14:36, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006 were made deliberately to check his response...and what do you know? Check contributions for him between 19:04, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006... all reverts. Oddly enough, I did actually have an excuse for the page moves which I put on his talk page here, and reverted him again, just to put one final test... And as I am submitting this contribs for 23:4x of the 6th December, same articles. Was it right or wrong for me to test him, you judge, even I get blocked for this, might be slightly extreme, but I won't challege it provided that I have the assurance that upon returning KPbIC will not be stalking me... --Kuban Cossack 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point Kuban kazak wrote: "You once accused me of Russification, well on one side you are correct" [46]. This is the core of the conflict. Kuban kazak is a Russian user who devotes significant amount of his activity on Russification of Ukrainian history (as well as the other territories, which were taken by Russian Empire). The user recently moved 4 articles on Kharkiv Metro stations from Ukrainian spelling to Russian spelling. A part of the problem is that the metro stations do not really have a well established English name. But it should be noted that the people of Ukraine have chosen to have the only official language (as stated in Constitution of Ukraine), which is Ukrainian, not Russian. The Ukrainian independence, laws, and traditions of Ukraine are recognized by the civilized world, which commonly uses the local names in case establish English names are absent.

Back to WP:STALK alleged accusations, I explained to Kuban kazak that his identity is of absolutely no interest to me. My interest is primary limited to the Ukrainian topics, the topics of my country. If there are drastic Russification attempts, such as Kuban kazak often used to commit, then it’s my understanding that it should be prevented. Kuban’s attempts are on the edge of vandalism, as basically he’s challenging the integrity of Wikipedia.

The bigger issue is the relation of a majority and a minority. There are more Russian editors than Ukrainians. While WP:NPOV is postulated as one of the key elements of Wikipedia, often it’s difficult to achieve. With respect to the Ukrainian topics, instead of bothering with analyzing references, looking for information sources, some use brutal force to substitute NPOV by Russian POV. The rest of Wikicommunity very often does not care. Frustrated with the situation, many new Ukrainian editors simply leave, which only amplifies the prevalence of Russian POV. In the end, instead of being a source of reliable information, Wikipedia may fail into the hands of such majority groups. This is the challenge that Wikipedia is facing. --KPbIC 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard argument, that is half full of lies... anyway talking about NPOVs and integrities then I invite anyone to take a look on my contributions for the period that KPbIC was absent October and November... I knew he was gone, so had I wanted to choose to troll and russify articles, would I not take advantage of not having a stalker? Please if anyone finds anything in my contributions of that time then his argument might stand...however so far there is really is nothing for him to bite into... which immediately discredits every comment about russification which I must say is an extremely abstarct term, and in some cases is actually offensive if all my actions (according to him) are Russification. So that means, hypotherically every article I edit that is related to Ukraine is Russification...

As for Kharkiv Metro stations, then I agree with Alex Bakharev and actually with the moves... and as explained above it was but a simple provocation, to test whether KPbIC has grown up since his departure in October...I even told him on his talk page that should he raise the issue on Talk:Kharkiv Metro without first reverting, as a proof to me, then I would support him. One needs not be an expert to deduce that he has not.

Just to be clear, if there is a dispute on articles, I, unlike KPbIC prefer not to edit war if the people approach with necessary comments on a talk page... There is a WP:EQ which I strive to follow... yet some people, like him do not.

Finally, WP:POINT clearly states that insulted national conscience (his second argument) is no reason to harass other users by stalking on their edits... and the same goes with the integrity and NPOV arguments that he brought up... And just for the record, there are plenty of Ukrainian users contributing, yet so far only one seems to be harassing a Russian user by stalking his edits and then doing a big-bully accusation. I wonder why noone of the "Russian majority" is not extending him such a favour...And that is not because only 10% of his other edits are useful, i.e. as opposed to the 90% of them being reverts of mine. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent example Holodomor, a very charged topic, there was a very lengthy discussion on whether or not to include a controversial category. Even KPbIC participated, in the talk page and the dominating consensus was not to include it as genocide. However new users are often oblivious to this and sometimes this POV-pushing takes place [47]. However, per all consensus on talk pages when thousands of people revert this its ok for KPbIC, when I do it [48], its obviously not [49].

Like I said, I was patient for a long time, but its wearing thin, and frankly at times like these I ask that an admin takes serious action. Not just for the edits over the last two days, but for everything in the past. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the move war over the names for the Kharkiv Metro stations. I think User:Olexandr Kravchuk and User:KPbIC are right here. User:DDima and Kuban kazak wrote nice articles about these stations but the name should be based on the rules of Ukrainian language not on a strange Russian/Ukrainian mix. I have moveprotected the articles in the Ukrainian version. If Kazak or somebody else wants to move them back he can file WP:RM but I doubt it would succeed.

The second issue is that I agree that KPbIC (when he is onwiki) appears to stalk Kuban kazak and User:Irpen. E.g. I strongly suspect that even in this case he became involved into the move war of Kuban kazak vs Olexandr Kravchuk not because he had the Kharkiv metros stations on his watchlist but because he monitors all Kazak's edits. This is a recurring pattern and in the most cases (unlike the Kharkiv Metro names) it leads only to a petty harassment of Kazak without any benefit to the project. I have my own history of conflicts with KPbIC, so I might be biased in my assessment of the situation but I ask an uninvolved admin to look into the stalking allegations. Alex Bakharev 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues here have to be separated. As far as moves where concerned, those where indeed not "unexplained" as KK claimed when reverting them, but simply "unproposed". Unproposed, at least informally at talk, moves are generally a bad idea, but should not be automatically reverted. Those moves were sensible. As the articles are now at those sensible locations, the issue is moot.

The core of KK's complaint is that KPbIC habitually stalks his edits and reverts, picks fights and edit wars in various articles. I can ascertain that this is true. The editor indeed stalks KK (and myself) and while I find being stalked amusing and even thrilling to be that editor's obsession, I can see that Kazak has no obligation to take the stalker with a similar humor and can be, as such, annoyed by him. Stalking is really an issue here. KPbIC' response is basically off-topic. He has grievances about Wikipedia's systemic bias, he has his eternal grievances against "the Russians" in general, he invokes some unrelated issues in Ukrainian politics, etc. This all does not belong to WP:ANI.

Kuban kazak complains that he is being stalked for many months by user:KPbIC. I can certify that this is true. The only issue here is whether the KPbIC' habit in question falls under Harassment ("following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" , "stalking another editor who is acting in good faith" and "constantly nit-picking in violation of required courtesy") or it is a legitimate activity of correcting the problem editor. In my opinion KK is not a problem editor but a committed contributor (not without the fault like all of us) and KPbIC' activity qualifies as Harassment. I can tell because I am also an object of KPbIC stalking. I simply take it with pity rather than with anger. --Irpen 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Stalking is a big deal. To answer Kuban's original question, and I do think Alex's and Irpen's agreement that it is stalking is convincing (and therefore worrying), this noticeboard probably won't solve this kind of problem. Your best chance would be to file an RFC and go to arbitration if the behavior doesn't change, or perhaps even make an arbitration request immediately. Arbcom has banned people for stalking [50] [51], but, based upon severity and the offender's productivity, it has also devised useful remedies for preventing harassment [52] [53]. Either would be useful. Dmcdevit·t 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They say there are two separate issues. Wrong. The Russification is the primary and the leading issue; the other issues are secondary.

All the conflicts I had with Kuban kazak were caused by his attempts of Russification. On Kiev Metro he was pushing for the Russian language map. He did the same on Kryvyi Rih Metrotram. He attempted to impose the Russian spelling for Maladzyechna. Exactly as he moved the 4 articles on Kharkiv Metro to the Russian spelling.

I'm primary interested in contributing on the topics of my country, Ukraine. I check the Ukrainian new article announcement portal, Ukrainian projects on subdivisions and language, and I do check contributions of users that are know of being involved in Ukrainian topics, and Kuban kazak is among them. Nonetheless, I decline the alleged accusations of me wikistalking Kuban kazak. I'm not following him from article to article. Kuban kazak had conflicts and problems on other issues (like on Moscow metro), which I don't care of. Having no significant interest in Russia, I'm not getting involved in his other conflicts. I'm not supporting his opponents based on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. But when Kuban kazak comes to Ukrainian articles being in Russification mood, here I get involved. I did found out that Kuban kazak moved 4 articles (not 3 or 5) by checking his contributions. But this is the common approach to respond to vandalism issues. When I notice, someone vandalized a page, I fix it, and I check vandal’s contributions to find out whether the other articles were vandalized. As a vandal probably getting pleasure out of vandalizing the wikipedia, possibly Kuban kazak is pleased by his Russification attempts. When disagreement is expressed with his attempts, he may be under negative emotion. Yet, there is no valid reason to put the cart in front of the horse. It’s his attempts to Russificate the articles of the neighbors of Russia, predominantly Ukraine that when discovered, may cause his dissatisfaction. It’s not the other way around. What should I do, keep my eyes closed when someone is damaging the articles, compromizing the neutrality of them? My advice to Kuban would be to leave the Russification spirit out, and I’m always open to cooperate on improving the encyclopedia.

Dmcdevit, what worries me is that you found Alex's and Irpen's agreement convincing, and this is in the situation when yet the other "members" of "Russian mob" like Grafikm_fr or Ghirla did not show up. What I'm kindly asking for is an independent review of the conflict. --KPbIC 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism in modern India-related sockpuppetry

I stumbled across this (really, I was running a check on a completely different user, so it was an odd occurence) case of major sockpuppetry related to the ongoing edit war at Buddhism in modern India. I can say with a high level of certainty based on the IP evidence that Pkulkarni (talk · contribs), Shrilankabuddhist (talk · contribs), Buddhistindian (talk · contribs), Ambedkaritebuddhist (talk · contribs), Dhammafriend (talk · contribs), HKelkar2 (talk · contribs), Iqbal123 (talk · contribs), Bhangi brahmin (talk · contribs), and Kelkar123 (talk · contribs) are one person. Note the two impostor accounts. This is potentially a workplace IP, so meatpuppetry is a possibility, but based on the nature of the editing, it looks like a single person to me (scrutiny welcome). Dmcdevit·t 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been the cause of a lot of edit-wars. I have indef-blocked all the socks/attack users, and also blocked Pkularni for a month as this is a first time offence. I have also made a post at the Indian noticeboard as there were some discussions about the article in question there. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this was previously reported fir checkuser as Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bodhidhamma (but declined). Thatcher131 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I was thought of filing a Checkuser for Shrilankabuddhist (talk · contribs), and Dhammafriend (talk · contribs). utcursch | talk 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Dmcdevit helped me nab Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23 and his neo-Buddhist socks. THey are related to this case as well.Bakaman 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Green was on 216.254.121.169, so it's unlikely they're related, as they're on different continents. Dmcdevit·t 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account User:Indianbuddhist. See the most recent edits [54] and Indianbuddhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same as User:Ambedkaritebuddhist or User:Shrilankabuddhist and tendentious editing on Dalit Buddhist movement ). Hkelkar 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse redux

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been criticized for mass tagging sprees, not the least of which is connected to a great number of articles created by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and involving the Starwood Festival. Mattisse has been subject to many checkuser cases, some of which are documented here, which resulted in a block, here, and here, which resulted in a longer block (1 week) for inappropriate uses of sockpuppets.

Well, an RfC and a mediation case are still ongoing regarding Rosencomet and the Starwood Festival articles. It was recently brought to my attention that Mattisse approached another user involved in the disputes, complaining about an article that one of Mattisse's own confirmed socks created, apparently as a device to discredit other parties in the mediation and create an impression of impropriety. I feel this action warrants a longer block. Thoughts? --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm advocating for Matisse, my only comment is that Matisse was asking Paul Pigman what should be done with the article and wasn't really complaining, just asking for advice. As it happens, I've prodded the article. Addhoc 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However, Matisse should learn that 'It wasn't me, it was my granddaughter' only works as a sockpuppetry excuse once and is a poor one the first time. I hope she has learned better sense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, same excuse given here. —Hanuman Das 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, purely for the sake of information, that I've taken on the Starwood Festival mediation case. As far as I can see, Matisse has declined to involve herself in the mediation process, although if I've missed an alternate account of hers, please let me know. - Che Nuevara 07:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat

As per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl, please indefinitely block this idiot. There is a clear cut consensus. --Cat out 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting... whats keeping you? --Cat out 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, why the hesitation? He is asking for it... --Cat out 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to bait us. It's not big, it's not funny and it's not clever. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually requesting it formally. But very well. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Cool_Cat --Cat out 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Cool Cat since he asked for it specifrically. I don't really know what this dispute is about, so if he's being sarcastic I am not really sure what effect he's going for, but when you ask to be indef blocked you should realize it just might happen. If he'd like to explain why he said something he didn't mean, I'm listening. --W.marsh 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's justified purely by the user requesting it. This request smacks of trying to make a WP:POINT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we don't usually do requested blocks. Cool Cat was probably just letting off steam, and didn't really want to be blocked. Prodego ^talk 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a mind-reader, he said he wanted to be blocked. He can now say he didn't actually mean it, if he didn't. At any rate given the joke RFAr I think a block for disruption was coming soon anyway. --W.marsh 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not indefinite though, I think a 2 hour disruption block would be better considering that Cool Cat is a positive contributor. Prodego ^talk 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what's positive at all about this tantrum. He should really understand that he shouldn't have done this, apparently he's stubbornly waiting for me/another admin to blink. That may sound like I'm myself venturing close to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but I don't at all see blocking him as disrupting Wikipedia. If others disagree I respect that and will unblock. --W.marsh 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a tantrum. You're blocked now, Cat, so, um, I guess "Mission accomplished". The big wiki keep on turning, Cool Cat keeps on burning. You know how to use the unblock request templates whenever you're ready if ever. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Cool Cat was upset at the lack of support for his position on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl, where he eventually wrote:

"I am bailing out of this request. Too many trolls and/or members of the deletionism cabal. If Elaragirl's conduct is acceptable, please delete WP:CIVIL. --Cat out 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"

and:

"Indefinitely block this idiot. This cool cat guy is only here for a malicious purpose. He should be annoyed harassed like no tomorrow as he has always been. (please check timestamps of evidence too) --Cat out 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"

I'm sorry he feels that way, but the RfC itself may have been a violation of WP:POINT. I did participate in the RfC, so I am not an uninterested party. Still, I wish him well. --Kyoko 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat has been frustrated for the last couple of weeks because a number of Star Trek-related articles that he respects have been put up for AfD, and I believe in a couple of cases deleted. In the process he has crossed paths with User:Elaragirl, a self-described "very aggressive" user and emphatic deletionist (who is currently blocked for 24 hours in an unrelated matter, see discussion above thread "Block of User:Elaragirl") and they have certainly rubbed each other the wrong way. Cool Cat's RfC filing against Elaragirl earlier today received, one could say, less than unanimous support which seems to have upset Cool Cat further.

Cool Cat has been talking about leaving Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently, for a few days now and probably could use a little bit of a Wikibreak. One possibility that occurs to me is that he's sought out a block as a means of Wikibreak enforcement, which I know is not permitted, yet is probably harmless for a couple of days in this instance. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's been unblocked by Bishonen. I don't really mind aside from the minor point that I'd like to at least have been asked about it first before my action was reversed, but whatever. Hopefully Cool Cat will have calmed down and come back. --W.marsh 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to post but got edit conflicted all over the place. I've unblocked because we're not supposed to block on request, just as admins aren't supposed to self-block. Please chill, Cat out. Bishonen | talk 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Eh, a single revert of an action is no big deal. Why should we own our admin actions any more than we own our edits? Looks like no harm done, at any rate. Friday (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He's an admin at Commons and is acting this way. Heh. -- Ned Scott 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling CC. -- Drini 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Bishonen's unblock and second Drini's comment. This looks like an exercise in WP:POINT. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this case re User:Moby Dick added to CC's frustration. Whatever the real reason is i ask CC to cool down and take easy. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, now we have this. Since I have better things to do than to get involved in this dispute, does someone else want to deal with this? Titoxd^(?!?) 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Penis images

Can someone explain what happened over the past few minutes? Many pages were filled with a repeated image Image:Right.jpg. Dmn € Դմն 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism at Template:Please check ISBN - see Talk:Macedonia (terminology) to credit the guy who tracked it down. Carcharoth 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's fixed now. 165.21.155.11 vandalized the high-risk {{Please check ISBN}} template and it carried over to many articles. Also, the template is now protected. Nishkid64 01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

God I hate the Commons. We should have been able to delete that image as soon as it appeared everywhere. Dmn € Դմն 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We could upload some milder image locally using that same image name. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was on Template:Please check ISBN. Can we block a range of IPs? These were from 165.21.155.10 and 165.21.155.11. I suspect he's also User:Fairxento as well (see the edits to Down Syndrome from 21:49 to 21:51 on December 5), but it may just be a shared computer. In the past few days, he's put genitalia on the front page (on two separate occasions, with two separate images), and he's given Bill Gates and George W. Bush Down Syndrome. But the other edits seem very constructive! What to do? tiZom_(2¢) 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem prudent to alter the procedure for featured articles, by protecting any template that appears on the page. Dmn € Դմն 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's going to come to that, sadly. It will take a considerable amount of time to do each day, too. But considering we see this kind of vandalism more days than not lately, it looks like we might have to do it. --W.marsh 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He added the image to {{ref label}} as well and thus had himself back-uped when the first of the two templates were reverted (which was {{ref label}}, and you don't want to know how stressing it was to look through 20 templates, finding the vandalism, removing it, and than seeing the articles still having penises all over them...). Anyway, shouldn't templates such as those be protected on a regular basis? They should not generally be edited, and {{ref label}} hadn't been edited since April this year before he came along. – Elisson • T • C • 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this incident may have convinced me. I have been looking at the dozens of templates on a country page, such as {{AGO}} and {{Country alias Angola}}, and shudder at the thought of trying to locate a piece of vandalism in this haystack. These templates are extensively transcluded and almost never edited and I see very little reason why they shouldn't be protected as a matter of course. - BanyanTree 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it doesn't have to come to blocking everything. Is it possible for an admin to block a page from viewing? This vandalism was well thought out, and took a while to get fixed. If an admin could stop all views on a page while they worked on reverting it, I think that would be helpful... tiZom_(2¢) 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop all views of Today's Featured Article (the main target)? I doubt that would go down well – Gurch 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image of choice is now Image:Smegma_Penis01.jpg --Bshrode 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image says it links to two articles, but I can't seem to find it at all.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Use MediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent the use of an image on all but select appropriate articles. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have (temporarlly) put all images listed in the commons category into the bad image list. We no doubt will want to remove them all again soon but maybe for now it might help... ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

recent changes in Template namespace <- please keep an eye on this. --74.109.173.23 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also caught them at template:Loc (though the image was Image:Image_of_frenulum.jpg). careful monitoring is needed for a few hours. these are sneaky. Circeus 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By my count, about 11 of the templates within today's Main Page FA, Macedonia (terminology) were vandalized. I know there's still discussion on whether the Main Page FA itself should have protection or not, but there's really no reason that the templates on the Main Page FA, or even Templates in general, shouldn't have semi-protection. A new IP user making a good faith edit really has no business mucking around in the Templates.--DaveOinSF 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mk icon needs protection. Its just been targeted by the same vandal[55]. Gdo01 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Luna Santin 07:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does Commons even HAVE so many pictures of penises? And can it not set up some "blacklist", and have images on that list not be automatically fetched from commons when a local copy doesn't exist? Seems to me that would solve a lot of problems – Gurch 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That sort of defeats the purpose of having Commons, though, and it would presumably be new development. I did add all the images in the category (there may still be others) to the blacklist as a temporary measure (thank you AWB for making generating that list easy!). Other hardworking admins (Centrx and BanyanTree) reviewed the list and made it permanent. That really should help. Don't forget there ARE legitimate uses for some of the images, after all...) ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template vandalism still happening?

From this it looks like the template vandalism is still going on. Can someone protect all the templates used in this article, please? Plus the templates used in the templates... Carcharoth 12:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions on this topic

Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, we've been seeing a lot of more of this as of late: template vandalism to the FA (and often penis images as well). I wonder if it's the same idiot, or if they're somehow connected (hope no one said this before).-Patstuart^talk|edits 14:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was getting the same problems with Template:Lang-ru last night, which caused penis images to appear on various Russian articles. I am hoping most of the damage got fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup

Edit count for Highfructosecornsyrup Edit count for Wikipediatrix

It seems my/our suspicions of this user being a sockpuppet were well founded, however the editor responsible was certainly a shock. Checkuser confirms the perp is definitely Wikipediatrix - and, to quote Essjay;

"The sock appears to have been a straw-man sock, and was used for double voting (albiet, opposite votes) in several AFDs. What to do with it should be left to the admins."

There are also disputes on various Scientology articles talk pages in which the sock has been used to directly breach WP:SOCK.

So, question is, where to from here. As a "involved party" I would appreciate input. No blocks have been issued at this time Glen 05:44, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

Er, double voting and breaches of SOCK are shocking and unacceptable for an editor who has been around so long. At the very least the sock should be indef'd and Wikipediatrix given a week block to prevent her from continuing this behaviour and to think about her actions seriously. At the least. pschemp | talk 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I mean yeah. That's completely unacceptable. What Pschemp said (I'm somewhat involved having welcomed the user and been the first editor to ask if the editor had previous experience and argued with the editor about deletion matters). I'm probably too involved to make the block. JoshuaZ 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(many edit conflicts) Well now, this is very bizarre. Of course block Highfructosecornsyrup indef. Beyond that I don't know what to do. So weird... Grandmasterka 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The sock is blocked. I'd prefer to leave Wikipediatrix to a more experienced admin; my recommendation would be a short-term block per WP:SOCK, and if everyone else here is conflicted, I'll do the block myself. | Mr. Darcy talk 06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a short-term block, perhaps a week. --Coredesat 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the user's history, a longer block might be needed, possibly more than a week (I'd suggest maybe two weeks). --Coredesat 06:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually usually the conservative one on block length, but I make a real distinction between disruption and outright deceit. Two weeks is the minimum block I would apply in this case. I think the block length should at least equal the length of time for the sock account, which would be about two weeks. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case no-one saw it, my reccomendations (which I gave immediately following the findings from Essjay being published) are here.[56] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. I have asked Wikipediatrix what gives. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Having studied (thanks, in part, to the excellent articles we have here) the history of Scientology in detail, I'd like to know if there's any feasible way of framing someone in this way? yandman 08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Wikipediatrix around in a lot of AfDs, and him using a sock puppet like this... doesn't make sense. Maybe there's something more to this? Maybe he knows this guy in real life and they were using the same internet connection at one point? I mean, really, it doesn't make sense. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second. 'Trix stopped editing on the 29th, and before then, CornSyrup made no edits to CoS related pages. The CoS edits on the fructose account are all after trix disappeared. What the f... is going on here? yandman 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - The sockpuppet didn't start editing until a week before Wikipediatrix stopped. There is little overlapping... I wonder if Wikipediatrix was planning to ditch her original account and get a new username for privacy, and voted opposite votes to disassociate the identities? If so, you guys have just taken a cannonball to that plan :-\ Milto LOL pia 10:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• FYI For a full summary of the articles, and all the individual diffs showing the pages common to both accounts see here Glen 11:14, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

I think the people questioning this are unfamiliar with how checkuser works so let me give you and example. Essjay's findings show that these two edits were made within minutes of each other using the exact same underlying IP address and no other users have used that IP address. There is no way this is more than one user, the IP isn't an open proxy.

• (cur) (last) 03:50, November 29, 2006 Wikipediatrix (Talk | contribs | block) (removed rant. this isn't a chat room.)
• (cur) (last) 03:41, November 29, 2006 Highfructosecornsyrup (Talk | contribs | block) (→List of Teletubbies episodes)

This, combined with the diffs Glen has listed are pretty damming. Plus, I've no reason to doubt the checkuser results. Additionally, the fact that Wikipediatrix stopped editing about the time the sock became really active is even more proof in my book. I've blocked for a week. pschemp | talk 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand how a checkuser works, however I believe that the pattern of editing here is closer to that of two people using the same computer than that of a user deliberately socking. See here. yandman 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, two people who used the same computer within 11 minutes of each other who also edited the exact same articles? Highly doubtful. pschemp | talk 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say possible myself... A lot of people have home networks and therefore several computers could appear as the same IP (a closed proxy).

However, I am not saying that this is the case - I am just a little bewildered by the fact that a previous good editor suddenly does all of this. It is a little bit strange is it not?

Has anyone actually emailed her to find out what she has to say?-Localzuk^(talk) 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it was strange except that it has happened before and more than once. Remember User:Jtkeifer for example. And then there was the guy who was vandalising under one account and reverting it under another. Anyone is welcome to email the user, and a message has been left on the talkpage. Should a plausible explanation be put forward, things can be reconsidered, nothing on the wiki is permanent. However, right now, I feel I've done what the situation warranted. pschemp | talk 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but she's been defending the articles against the CoS on a daily basis for over a year now, in fact she's one of the main causes behind Xenu being FA. Why would she suddenly switch sides? Maybe I'm assuming too much good faith, but I can't help smelling fish. Anyway, as you say, nothing's permanent. yandman 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just sent her an email. However, she's not edited for the last 10 days, so I don't know if she's anywhere near a computer. Maybe she's married Tom cruise... yandman 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately yandman, whilst I applaud your ability to continue to assume good faith it the most dire of circumstances and look for any rationale that could explain this, I must invoke Occam's Razor; you are wrong. You are excluding one vital factor in your assumptions; The fact that I asked four or five direct questions this user regarding their previous experience, and they denied they had ever edited here, and learned by watching us for two years. (see here for a reminder) This would have been the perfect opportunity to tell use her roommate was an avid editor... or another such explanation. So, its Wikipediatrix, no question there. But, I do have some serious concerns that need answering about all this that havent been discussed. (see next post)  Glen  16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the rub: This is the fucking perplexing thing about all this. It is directly because of Wikipediatrix that I am even here at all. She actually wrote the original article about my website that caused me to find Wikipedia. A website that parodies Scientology and Tom Cruise. When questions arose about merging the article, she defended it. Almost exactly a year to the day later, I am lodging the Checkuser request that gets her blocked But... (see my next post...) Glen 17:00, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

This is better than CSI! yandman 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A two-word question:   wireless router? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:44, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Yes, that is a good point but what speaks against it is that wikipediatrix diappears and HFCS appears. If she was being played you would expect both editors to be active during the same overall time frame. I have a few ideas but none worth repeating and none that speak to her blocks. --Justanother 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please look at the facts here: 1) They edited the same pages, and within minutes of each other. 2) Wikipediatrix stopped about the time that Syrup picked up, 3) There is no other activity from this IP, 4) Syrup immediately jumped into administrative level stuff. I know people don't want to believe she's capable of it, but gosh, to be a rather blunt: if it looks, feels, tastes and smells like sockpuppetry, it's probably sockpuppetry. The chances of this being a coincidence are about the chance you'll win the lottery today. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Undeniable. But why would someone spend two years fighting Al and terryeo and then suddenly turn into them? There's gotta be one heck of an explanation somewhere. Thatcher131 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glen S above. A few people are tying themselves in knotts here trying to explain what is pretty clear to me. I think the burden is fairly on Wikipediatrix to explain the situation if we are wrong about the deception and sockpuppetry, and I highly doubt that we are. I still think a one week block is not long enough and would prefer to see it extended to two weeks, and even this seems like maybe not enough. This type of deliberate, willful deception is far more disruptive than your typical willy on wheels vandal, so my recommendation for a longer block is not for punative reasons, but to allow time for the damage caused to be undone and for the community to reflect upon this incident without having to worry that it is continuing. Note that I have had no interactions with either of these accounts, so there is no personal stake for me in my statements here. It is simply a reaction to the scope of the damage to people's trust in the community that behavior like this causes. I think perhaps an ArbCom case should be opened in this matter, but I will leave that decision to people more closely connected to the events. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The situation indeed is quite odd, but the editor has been asked for some sort of explanation, both on her talkpage and I father via e-mail. I would suggest that any further action be held in abeyance until we see whether she posts anything and what she has to say. Newyorkbrad 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

agree. Everything Fructose did was immediately reverted as blatant PoV, and everything trix did was accepted at the time. I agree that we've all been deceived and that an arbcom is definitely needed, but Wikipedia hasn't really been damaged, so there's little cause for alarm. Let's let this one play out. yandman 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Everything Fructose did was immediately reverted as blatant PoV, and everything trix did was accepted at the time." And what does that tell us. Cause I have to tell you, guys, she did much more credible work as Fructose than she did as Trix. And I don't think that comes from my POV as a Scientologist either. At least over the period I've been here and also her older edits that I have worked with. --Justanother 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we can wait for a response before extending the block. However, if we have no response by the time the one week block expires, I suggest and indef block until we at least get a response. As to the statement from Yandman regarding "Wikipedia hasn't really been damaged", I respectfully disagree. I repeat that these actions are far more damaging than a blatant serial vandal, and I can't see anyone arguing that that doesn't cause damage. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

what do you see as damaging? The edits by wikipediatrix? The edits by HFCS? Or something else? --Justanother 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Primarily the undermining of trust. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, true. But we never really know who we are dealing with and should govern ourselves accordingly. I wonder what precedent wikipedia has experienced for something like this. --Justanother 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No frakking way!!! This is surreal... There must be another explanation. Maybe she is on vacation and someone is using her computer? We absolutely need to hear what she has to say before we do anything permanent. Including the ban of HFCS. As far as I am concerned all that has been done thus far is that another rational editor of Scn arcticles has been banned for life. ---Slightlyright 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, nobody has been banned for life. Read the discussion more carefully. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

See Wikipediatrix's explanation and comments here. Newyorkbrad 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on that response I think the current 1 week block is the appropriate response and it can end there. Regardless of intent, double voting, switching back and forth over short periods of time, and contributing with both accounts to the same articles without disclosure is disruptive. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the deliberate dissemination when Highfructosecornsyrup querried regarding previous experience here. That was disruptive in all the effort that has been expended getting the straight answer that should have been forthcoming when first asked. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I was going to ask why the block because I did not see anything wrong with Fructose's edits and socks are not specifically disallowed. Changing your mind is also not disallowed. Then I checked and saw that she had voted keep on two of her own AfDs so that is somewhat disingenuous and grounds for some short block. Other than that did trix/syrup do anything really wrong other than torque people off. Hell, trix sure torqued me when acting the critic. --Justanother 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. A week seems right. Thatcher131 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Something still doesn't smell right about this: a one week block for a death threat? I'd like to see the diff of that threat. Durova^Charge! 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussed here. Newyorkbrad 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes lets just make this perfectly clear; Wikipediatrix did not make any death threats, nor anything remotely close. She was informing me of a blocked user who had made them on his talk page. That's all. Lets kill that rumor now. I've only just turned my PC on so still processing the rest of all this. Glen 05:18, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

No she didn't, I misread the diff. I have however, corrected the blocking reason in the log. No need for anyone to get excited. pschemp | talk 06:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasnt clarifying that for you Pschemp, was aware you well understood; just making it crystal clear to anyone else just quickly browsing over this before a whole new conspiracy begins.

Yeah i knew you weren't. I was just making clear to casual readers of the page that the mistake had been fixed. pschemp | talk 14:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, regarding her explanation, I guess I'm kinda relieved. Was anything resolved regarding the block? My concern about what she did lies solely around WP:POINT. There were changes she wanted made, obviously, and it was her doing them via a new account with no explanation that caused all the edit warring, and, is the reason this whole section/checkuser was done in the first place. Take, for example, this. Now Wikipediatrix started and in fact wrote that entire article - yet, days later - marks her own work as a copyvio with the sock! Now if she'd done that with her main account, as the creator, no one would doubt her. But instead edit warring ensued. Here Wikipediatrix was the last person to edit the template, and made some fairly big changes; the very next edit is her, as the sock, removing info... and again edit warring ensued. The socks intentions seemed to everyone to be to disrupt. Thus it effectively got nowhere. Wikipediatrix is respected enough to have mde those changes and for us all to AGF. But then I cant imagine Wikipediatrix making such sweeping removals, and nominating clearly notable Scientology critics for deletion without discussing it first... But, I guess Wikipediatrix did. Glen 06:24, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix has had a long history of contentious editing on this project. This just soldifies it. Frankly, I'm not surprised. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, apologies to everyone for my excessive good faith. What a waste of time. yandman 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you ban me??

I would like forgiveness from the community, and, while I have done some bad things here, I hope the community can forgive me, I do not WANT' to be banned by the community, I'll be a good kid. I will not use sockpuppets, or be abusive, or anything else. This account is my sockpuppet, last-ever one at that! --Chadbryant 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm! And who should recompensate admins' hard work? Just use this new account if you want to become cooler. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Netsnipe already blocked this account as soon as it started making disruptive edits. – Chacor 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially this one. Tagging an article w/o discussing! It wasn't a good sign from someone wanting to be forgiven. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

nor was 1)falsely claiming he was unblocked, 2)disputing the most benign article he could possibly find, or 3)immediately nominating several RfA's. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal the block, log back on as Chadbryant, not Pifflinman, and bring the matter to your own talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're trying to get yourself unblocked, that contribution history is only pushing you 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:151.188.0.229

This user has a history of mischief. They were blocked for the month of November. They're back now, and vandalizing again. They've only received a couple of warnings since returning, but they've vandalized at least four articles over two days. Not sure what the policy is on warnings for a repeat anonymous vandal, but it seems at the very least like something to keep an eye on. Waitak 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again. Refer to WP:AIV next time for prompt actions. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Waitak 00:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a user, it's an IP address. Unless you know for sure that it's the same person, whatever happened in november or before is irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Departure of User:MONGO

See here. Newyorkbrad 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• A loss for WP. A pox on the houses of those who drove him away. Crockspot 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, this is indeed a black day for Wikipedia. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope a little time off will allow him to reconsider; if we let the trolls win, Wikipedia is finished. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is exactly why we cannot be soft on trolling, it drives away legitimate editors. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an important point. Jkelly 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Trolling is bad. (and see my comments below) Patstuart^talk|edits 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Aude on the "truthers"

This would mean more workload on others to monitor the 9/11 pages. I didn't come to Wikipedia to work on those pages, but won't tolerate undue weight amount of "nonsense" fringe theories. There are so many 9/11 pages here, which are attractive to the "truth" movement, who are extremely persistent and determined to spread the truth with their non-reliable sources. They like to use Wikipedia as a tool in their truth spreading. And, I've been on the Loose Change forums and do observe them often consulting Wikipedia in their "research". If you go on their forums and at all question anything they say or profess expertise, such as in engineering or as a pilot, they BAN you from their forum. I've been banned, but can signup again for another account. Not only do they go after folks like MONGO who insist on reliable sources, WP:V, and enforcement of other policies, but lately I've seen the "truthers" even go after 9/11 victims and their families. This shows how despicable their tactics are.

Examples of the tactics used by the "truthers":

• Charles Burlingame, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 is a popular target for "truthers"... His sister, Debra, remarked in the USA Today about the Loose Change video, "The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred...They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world. They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars." [57] His daughter, Wendy Burlingame came on the Loose Change forum and remarked "Reading the conspiracy theories regarding my father have made me and my family sick. We realize this is being done by sick individuals who need to deal with 9-11 in a different way than others. It does not make it any easier when you read your father was involved with the terrorists when you Google his name. I hope the people who write these things can sleep well at night." [58] BTW, she died earlier this week in a suspicious fire in her apartment. [59]

• They are also going after Lloyd England, the taxi driver who's cab was damaged by a lightpole when AA77 flew over the highway and crashed. See photo, Image:Pentagon_taxi_hit_by_lightpole.jpg. ([60] Dylan Avery (director of Loose Change), his "co-producers" Jason Bermas and Korey Rowe, their friend Russell Pickering, and their other buddies on the "Pentagon Elite Research Team" came to Washington at the end of August. They found out where Mr. England lives and came by unannounced with a video camera. They tricked the poor old 70 year-old man into talking with them. They are probably going to cherry pick bits from the "interview" and use it in the final cut of Loose Change. They have already been showing the video and amusing themselves with it. This google video is sick [61] Here's one of their blogs, which talks about their "interviews" with other Pentagon witnesses. [62] (it's a myspace link, so okay to click on it w/o fear of being tracked) Who knows, some of this could be lies, but some of it is real and disgusting.

• The truthers ("Killtown" in particular) have also gone after Val McClatchey, who took this photograph near Shanksville, moments after the plane crashed there. [63] Here's one of Killtown's blogs [64] (it's a blogspot link, so okay to click it) Killtown and others accuse her of having faked the photograph. Here's how Killtown has harrassed Ms. McClatchey, as reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [65] "The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage." On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey's name now pops up in the same sentence as "total fraud." ... This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

• And the NY911Truthers show up every Saturday at Ground Zero to "protest" and harrass tourists and passerbys. I would care less if they showed up outside the White House or some place else. But, find this highly distasteful.

It's one thing for some kids in their parents basement to do all this from behind a computer screen, but when they show up at GZ and go out harrassing victims and their families, it can't be tolerated. I know that some of the truthers that edit on Wikipedia are some of the hardcore folks. Banned user User:TruthSeeker1234 is one of them.

I have done what I can to keep those articles in check with Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. MONGO has been invaluable, and with his experience writing featured articles, he knows the policies well and what it takes to maintain a reputable, good article. The September 11, 2001 attacks article is always among the most viewed articles. [66] If that article descends into a propaganda, conspiracy POV pushing article for the "truth" movement, it would on the whole make Wikipedia look quite bad. I doubt they will ever succeed, as there is no consensus for what they are trying to do. In the event they did, I would likely give up on Wikipedia myself, viewing it as a waste of my time. There would be no use working on articles relating to my main area of expertise, including criminology (sorely lacking on Wikipedia). It's my hope that Wikipedia has the mechanisms in place to support enforcement of Wikipedia policies that are essential to keeping 9/11 articles reputable, yet alone create a hospitable environment where we can work to further improve the quality of them.

It's not ordinary trolling we are dealing with, but rather some real hardcore folks. --Aude (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I'm not up on this whole thing. Can somebody explain to me exactly why MONGO quit? Which trolls do we allow too much? -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for MONGO, but he's been caught up in both the Encyclopedia Dramatica situation (including extensive attempts to "out" his real-life identity) as well as attacks from editors on the September 11 and related articles. It really has been unrelenting. A recent proposal in an ArbCom case to desysop him can't have done much for his morale either (note that this is not a criticism of the arbitrator; I opposed the proposal, but the arbs have jobs to do, too). Newyorkbrad 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware if User:Seabhcan is involved with ED. I don't think so, but could be wrong. But, he's been pushing the "truth". I have Seabhcan over on the Loose Change forum, as heavily involved. If that's what he chooses to do off-wiki, that's okay. We can have a place for 9/11 conspiracy theories, and present them for what they are. But, I don't accept folks pushing the "truth" here against WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Furthermore, his mannerisms have been rather uncivil towards MONGO, User:Morton devonshire and others. It's a combination of this and the ED situation that tests our patience. Wikipedia needs to be firm in enforcing such policies. MONGO was trying to do so, sometimes taking actions into his own hands, thinking it often takes too long for other admins to respond to ANI posts. Though, MONGO does make note of his actions on ANI for review by other admins. Other admins concurred with the block of Cplot, for example. With the User:Cplot situation, the trolling has been relentless and his socks need to be blocked on sight. This situation is frustrating me, as well as MONGO. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Seabhcan has anything to do with ED. Of course I speak from my own point of view, but I see the arbitration as mostly about Seabhcan's incivility. His opinions about who did 9/11 are peripheral, in my opinion. What he does off site is his own business, as Aude said above. A point I would add to Aude's about 9/11 "Truth" is the profit motive. Many of the conspiracist sites sell dvds and books, and solicit contributions. Granted we can't very well cite an article about a conspiracy theory without linking to the promoter's website, but these links and the google page rank that comes with them are an important part of some business models. I think that is a factor in some of the zeal to spread the "Truth." Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's really sad to see Mongo go, especially since this involves caving in to the demands of the cplot sockpuppets. Also, obviously the ED trolls were relentless in outing Mongo's identity. Some evidence suggests Mongo himself may have even been involved with the ED initiatives. And how can anyone cope with another outing the most intimate details of one's identity, when the one outing oneself is oneself. It's truly invasive. The Cplot sockpuppets were relentless too. They actually demanded Mongo and other admins try to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies. Even worse these trollish sockpuppets expected Mongo to abide by those policies on certain occasions. It defies belief. The worst part is that now other admins will need to take up the slack: to try to enforce the opposite of WP policies to ensure that the articles related to 9/11 remain strictly Whitehouse propaganda. --AirlineToHeaven 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User warned about this behaviour and similar uncivil comments/personal attacks elsewhere. If it continues please nuke at will. --CBD 11:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just cplot again, and could be banned and reverted, but I though leaving this up as an illustration would be more useful (this is, in fact, mild for cplot). Thatcher131 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of copyrighted content

New user Docued, apparently acting as an employee of Documentary Educational Resources, has repeatedly copied and pasted text from DER pages into articles Jay Ruby, Robert Gardner, Dead Birds (1965 film), John Marshall (filmmaker). User has been warned that this likely constitutes copyright infringement and any case is not consistent with policy. In hopes that this is the correct space to report this, --Media anthro 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There may well be Wikipedia:Username concerns here as well. Jkelly 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

DER holds the copyright to all information Media anthro continues to delete. This information is not only legitimate and accurate, but it is also information filmmakers, anthropologists, ethnographers, historians and many others will find great value in. All sources, including DER, have been cited according to Wikipedia policy. Is this not a site for sharing important factual information? It seems Media anthro has a problem with DER, or DER's filmmaker's, who I'd like to point out, are some of the world's most respected and important documentary filmmakers. Also, DOCUED, is DOCUMENTARY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES abbreviated, not sure what Jkelly is alluding to here. Docued 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered at User talk:Docued. Jkelly 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're willing to turn over the copyright information into the public sphere (i.e., you can no longer claim any of it as your own, even if someone uses it in their own material), then you can feel free to paste it here. But you'll also need to put a notice on your website that all information is now under the GFDL license. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, that is not true. GFDL allows the copyright owner to dual-license. The originator always keeps the copyright. What they add to WP is released under the GFDL and can be copied/changed. But they can also keep the copyright notice on the original page as well. That page does not have to announce that the material has been dual licensed elsewhere. But they do have to send an email to Wikimedia Foundation stating that they GFDL what they do add to WP. 32.97.110.142 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

32.97.110.142 is correct... we don't expect contributions to be released into the public domain. Regardless, we don't really want cut-and-pastes of promotional text however it is licensed. Jkelly 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

After posting a GFDL notice on a DER page, User:Docued is reinserting the copied text again (into John Marshall (filmmaker), Dead Birds (1965 film), and Robert Gardner. I still feel these insertions are inappropriate for Wikipedia, but I will hold off on reverting them to see what other editors think. --Media anthro 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Without a specific GFDL release, and without specific proof that the person in question has the right to make the release, they are a copyvio, and the User should be blocked for serial copyright violations. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I think the fact that he has modified the external site to indicate GFDL licensing proves both things: that he has the right to release them on behalf of his org and that they are no longer copyvios (even though the notice is not quite correct). The question does remain whether we want the material or not. I'll leave that for someone else to decide. 32.97.110.142 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use!

Another for fair use. Article Devil Fruit have over 40 screenshots for illustrative purposes, all claiming fair use, yet nowhere are the images or the situations depicted being discussed themselves. This fails WP:FU, and also counterxamples apply:

An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article.

Now, could someone else take a look? I've been reverted and the 40 or so screenshots have been reinserted. Maybe I was wrong, but if not, could someone explain User:Jreferee the fair use concept? -- Drini 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be another of those "I'm going to put a screenshot for every item in a list" cases, which are often a ridiculous amount of work to resolve. Jkelly 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's image-cruft at best, but more to the point, it is probably a FU problem. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s has resolved a lot of these cases, and can probably point to precedent. Jkelly 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is too many iamges, they need to go (except for the lead). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in to the issue as I?ve been a priori disqualified to do it ;) From my talk :

See your talk. I did it sinc ethey didn't fulfill Fair use criteria for their insertion. -- Drini 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree since I know otherwise, but I'm not going to argue otherwise because I think your going to be one of those Wikipedians you can't argue with. It doesn't matter, we've solved the problem. (...) Angel Emfrbl 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

TerriNunn = NerriTunn

(See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TerriNunn, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TerriNunn again.}

She has returned under the name NerriTunn, and it personally attacking me here, and here. Please, please, could an admin do something. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Those personal attacks amount to nothing less than trolling. Block and harsh words required. Moreschi 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I issued a single warning to her to knock it off. If she persists, I'll indef-block, but since the last block was for WP:USERNAME, I want to give her one chance to straighten up and fly right. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that username seems to have just a bit of WP:POINT to it, no? Patstuart^talk|edits 19:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I didn't see this section before I blocked her for being a sockpuppet of a blocked account. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The original account was only blocked for the User name, blocking someone who comes in with a new User name shouldn't be automatic. I would support an unblocking and a final warning. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually did just that about an hour ago. She gets a short leash, but she gets a leash nonetheless. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

She just created List of heteroflexibles, a blatant POV fork of List of bisexuals. I slapped an AfD on it, but am curious if it would be appropriate for me to either delete the page entirely or to blank it and make it a redirect to List of bisexuals. Just didn't want to overstep my admin-bounds here. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete and recreate as a redirect. Sprotect if necessary. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User Stealthusa is uploading copyrighted images

Stealthusa has uploaded a host of copyrighted images. He has been warned about using these images on his talk page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stealthusa), yet he has either decided to ignore these warnings or does not understand them; he has now removed the image warning and placed incorrect licensing tags on the images. Please note his contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stealthusa Elcda0 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a last warning. Jkelly 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And right after that, he uploaded another copyrighted image. I've blocked him for 24h with a stern warning to knock if off. The fact that, rather than acknowledging his confusion, he left an indignant note on your talk page indicates to me that we're not getting through to him. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag vandalism by User:Irpen

Irpen (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed tags regarding images which might not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In June 2006 User:Irpen was subject to a RfC regarding the improper removal of notice tags (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen), however he has continued doing with this behaviour: diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 (there are more diffs, but since the images have been deleted they are not visible: diff 4 diff 5 diff 6 diff 7 diff 8 diff 9 diff 10).

Regarding the latest incident, User:Irpen was cautioned by an administrator User:Robth who wrote: "This was not the proper way to handle that situation, and you know it. If you dispute the replaceability, add the disputed tag on the page and explain why (I have done this for the image in question). Please don't do this again." on User:Irpen's talk page (diff). User:Irpen has demonstrated a lack of willingness to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and work together with others, for instance the heading written by User:Robth on User talk:Irpen was changed from "Please don't do this" to "unexplained RFU tag" (diff).

Usually vandalism results in blocks, with the length being increased each time. --Oden 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand is illustrated by the #Personal_attacks.2C_harassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden thread above. Unlike other users, the user above uses the image tag as a harassment tool. While overall image patrolling is a useful practice, user:Oden simply picks on users who had unrelated disagreements with him and digs through those user's entire upload history in order to harass them with tagging the images. The user also refuses to explain the tags at the talk page, a simple courtesy he was asked multiple times. I welcome more attention to the issue. --Irpen 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There does indeed seem to be some strange behaviour going on here [67] perhaps an admin needs to investigate this seriously Giano 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The same user who started that thread also started User_talk:Oden#Thanks. --Oden 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we see another falsehood here. Those threads where started by different people. --Irpen 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both threads were started by User:Ghirlandajo. Am I missing something? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that both sides should calm down. While Oden's selective approach to tagging is not appropriate and inevitably leads to accusations of a personal vendetta, he should be encouraged to continue his RfU activities in an impartial way, like Carnildo and his OrphanBot do, giving the uploader time to find a free replacement and avoiding large-scale massacres of images. I urge Quadell, Irpen, and other people involved in the dispute to cool off and to stop accusing each other of vandalism. Your increasing hostility and aggression are not going to defuse the situation. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If this section is a suggestion that Irpen should be blocked, I strongly disagree. He has not continued removing tags since I asked him to stop, and blocking good contributors is a last resort. I do not think that the actions of any party in this disagreement require administrative intervention. --Robth^Talk 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that User:Irpen seems to demonstrate an attitude that he is above Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This thread should serve as a last warning, a user who has flouted the rules for five months should not be allowed to continue.

I have seen good contributions in this user's logs (which I have reviewed), however his interpersonal skills leave much to be desired. He also seems to harbour the view that any review of his contributions constitutes stalking, while any disagreement is a form of trolling. On November 30, 2006 User:Quadell wrote "This is what I've seen of Irpen. Insults, edit wars, and hostility" (diff). It pretty much sums it up so far. --Oden 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Quadell's statement is an accurate assessment of Irpen's behavior with regard to the recent fair use debates, but I do not think that blocking would be a productive action at this point. --Robth^Talk 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless WP:3RR or other policy has been violated, all parties should try to discuss the issues on relevant talk pages. Edit warring in the articles is annoying, but 'it takes two to tango', and as long as it's under 3RR it's not very serious. I tentativly support the non-delete tag till the consensus is reached, simply since undeleting image is more difficult then deleting it :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus here. If there is an ongoing discussion in search of concensus, the tag stays. If the tagger refuses to engage into discussion, tags an image, writes nothing at talk and leaves, this is not a discussion when the tag is stamped on top of the good-faith rationale. I asked the taggers to start discussing things many times to no avail.

Contrary to Oden's ascertion, I simply request my opponent to follow the policies, guidelines and common sense, not the other way around. His threats above are unimpressive as well as another undug edit not related to the matter. There is an abundance of opinions by many editors of Wikipedia about the attitudes of user Oden. I am not bringing them all here as we are discussing a narrow issue at hand. Questioning my ability to discuss the matter in good-faith disagreement would be found surprising by most of my opponents in many content disagreements.

I would like to thank Robth for the partial disagreeing regarding the suggested by Oden course of action. However, contrary to an opinion by Robth, I think the matters does need an investigation and an administrative intervention. Several users use tagging images as the way to harass editors with who they disagreed on unrelated matters. One thing is an overall image patrol, like the one done by the Orphanbot or users who go over images randomply, topically, alphabetically, etc. Quite another thing is picking on the contributors based on unrelated matters and dig through the months/years of their work looking for images to be tagged among those uploaded by these specific contributors. There is no other motive in this but harassment. WP:Harassment addresses the issue in detail. The evidence of aggressive and abusive stalking is abundant and this repugnant practice aimed needs continues. For evidence, see #Personal_attacks.2C_harassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden, User_talk:Oden#Stalking.2FReplaceable_fair_use_images, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok.

The issue was raised by many editors, especially in connection to Oden (talk · contribs) who right above brags about "reviewing" my entire contributions logs. I find being "reviewed" especially amusing. --Irpen 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that blocking User:Irpen will improve his behaviour either. However, I do believe that there is a need to press home the importance of not vandalising good-faith tags. It is serious when a editor places a tag in good faith, and User:Irpen removes it in apparent bad faith (childish behaviour that has been tolerated for too long). There is a need for a strong condemnation of this.

I also agree that some fair use images are arguably harder than others to replace, which is why a editor has the possibility of disputing the tag, instead of removing it. The involvement of an admin who decides whether or not to delete ensures that at least three editors have been involved in the discussion. Removing the tag disrupts this process, and disrupts Wikipedia. --Oden 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did it again: diff. Apparently there's no need for WP:V either.--Oden 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What? The article has 5 refs, which is quite OK for a starter article. Unless you want to add this template on all article without inline citations, this looks like WP:POINT to me. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think creating such a kind of entry while having a WP:ANI investigation going on borderlines on trolling and, worse yet, on stalking. Indeed, there is no other word to describe an editor picking another editor and stalking his contributions for many months or years exclusively with the aim to tag more and more images of his. And again, putting a no-source template (which incidentally goes to bottom and not to top) is clear-cut WP:POINT. I really hope that an uninvolved admin will intervene and sort this out. People like User:Truthseeker_85.5 got 1 month off for even less than that. Fair image patrol is one thing, deliberate trolling and disruption from Oden is another. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of the other Wikipedians recently most vocal about what has been described as a "jihad" against Fair Use images, and especially against the persons that have spoken out against the current enforcement practices removing nearly all Fair Use images of living persons, I have little doubt that Irpen has been targeted, as have I, for scrutiny of every image I've ever loaded to Wikipedia. While in the case of Oden, we were able to work through a FUR tagging exercise of dozens of images, seemingly reserved especially for those of of that publicly disagree with said policy enforcement, and in my case Oden in fact made a number of helpful suggestions, unlike most of his contemporaries, other users who share the same general viewpoints about "free" images attacked dozens of other images I've uploaded, and so far I've lost 32 of 35 images challenged. It's very, very clear that those of use who dispute the "jihad" are targeted for extended periods and forced to jump through hoops few others are, which a number of people have indicated is a violation of Wikipedia policy in and of itself. As long as the present enforcement policies remain in place, I will not load images of any kind to Wikipedia, and have asked others who have been attacked to consider the same. There is absolutely no doubt we are being targeted and stalked in these instances. Tvccs 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the comments above are good arguments for why there is no need to notify the uploader.

Images which can be fixed should be fixed without involving the uploader (I usually wait for the uploader to act before fixing missing rationales and try to make sure that orphanded fair use images haven't been orphaned by mistake).

If the image is missing a source then it might be necessary to contact the uploader. If the image is replaceable and the deleting admin comes to the same conclusion then the image should be deleted, and involving the uploader in such a case only causes alot of unnecessary aggrevation. --Oden 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh repeatedly inserting WP:OR

Someone please either severely warn or block User:Vlh about his repeated insertion of original research into Triple Crown Champion, Grand Slam Champion, Randy Orton, Adam Copeland and various other articles for over a month now. I have went through {{test4}} with him a couple of times now and he is only editing about every 3-4 days, so it's pretty slow-paced. I'm tired of warning this user with nothing happening to him for blatant abuse of policy. semper fi — Moe 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through his contribs, I see plenty of legitimate edits. Can you provide diffs that show vandalism or OR insertion? | Mr. Darcy talk 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hardly call removing protection tags, references tags and inserting WP:OR about the WWE United States Championship and changing legit facts constructive: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] And from reading his talk page, he has been trying to insert this since June and has been violating WP:OR every since. semper fi — Moe 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't remotely look like OR to me. It's either a tiny edit war, or it's vandalism, but it's not OR. The only warnings issued to him since August came from you, which makes this less compelling to me. Can you explain to us non-wrestling fans what exactly the issue is? Those diffs don't make it clear to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot not everyone watches wrestling and would understand this :) The issue is of the WWE United States Championship being a part of the requirements to the Triple Crown Championship and Grand Slam Championship. WWE doesn't consider, or hasn't confirmed that the United States Championship is in fact a requirement for the Triple Crown or Grand Slam to occur. I tried e-mailing WWE, but I got no response. This issue was furthur stimulated when a wrestler made a rouge comment on WWE television about how he had completed the "grand slam of professional wrestling". Despite searching long and hard on the internet to provide sources for this statement, nothing pulled up as a reliable source. The original research is inserted into a table format in the diffs, stating the United States Championship is part of the Triple Crown and Grand Slam championship status', but that's WP:OR because there have been no reliable sources for this claim outside that one comment on television one night, which can;t be taken seriously because of professional wrestling kayfabe. Vlh has been inserting this claim of the United States Championship since June, and has been reverted ever since, and no, his other messages on his talk page confirm that I wasn't the only one, and no I wasn't the only one reverting this, as other editors have reverted him too. semper fi — Moe 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Woud someone for the love of god stop this editor please? He continues to revert without providing sources and this is really testing my patience, so someone would someone please? semper fi — Moe 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the details. I have issued a clear warning to this user with a request (or perhaps a demand) for sourcing info. If he continues to revert without providing a source, please post it here again and I or another admin will take appropriate action. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you semper fi — Moe 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh now blocked 48h for vandalizing two more articles after my question/warning. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pkulkarni is using sockpuppets to evade a ban

Pkulkarni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been handed a one-month ban for sock-puppetry continues to use strawman sockpuppets Shudra123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Hindushudra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given that he has expressed his intentions to continue trolling [77], dont you guys think that he should be perma banned?

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See a related discussion above on this page the ani section on "buddhism" and sockpuppetry. There is a big quagmire of sockpuppetry among a fringe group of self-professed "neo-Buddhists" from India (nevertheless the true spiritual head of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is not affiliated with this movement).Bakaman 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All three accounts have been blocked by other admins for sock puppetry. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account User:Indianbuddhist. See the most recent edits [78] and Indianbuddhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same as User:Ambedkaritebuddhist or User:Srilankabuddhist and tendentious editing on Dalit Buddhist Movement ). Hkelkar 12:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Indianbuddhist as an obvious sock of Pkulkarni. I am also increasing his block to 2 months due to continued disruption. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, at the very least whenever a sockpuppet is found, Pkulkarni's block timer should be reset per policy, although if he creates enough, we should definitely consider an indefinite block or ban. --Coredesat 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

CJWright. Again.

Previous discussion. He's back as Theavatar3 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). I tried to wait to see what he would do, and while he started out OK, his edits have once again turned strange. Among things, he's brought the block notice and page protection from his old usertalk and is flaunting his block history [79], has used questionable edit summaries [80], and has made various random odd edits [81] [82]. He's again created a couple odd articles, though seeking their deletion aftwards [83]. All of that in addition to general reference desk sillyness. He was blocked before for trolling, and adding nonsense and misinformation to articles, and it looks like he may be continuing.

He was just blocked for 24 hours by Friday. Unfortunately he's learned he can switch his IP about to escape blocks. Is there anything that can or should be done? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked as a blatant sockpuppet of an indef-blocked editor. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if there's some way we can keep an eye out for any editor who edits their own userpage more than 35× per day, it should be really easy to spot him. Anchoress 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more the ref desk edits that could raise suspicion. His editing style is fairly easy to make out once you spot him, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, with all the unnecessary and deceptive wikilinks. I actually noticed those, and I recognised them, but I was too wonked out on painkillers to make the connection lol. Anchoress 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Backlog on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

There are some 65 cases listed at WP:SSP, and it appears that no administrator has taken action on any of the cases since mid-November. That page does not at present seem to be an effective way of reporting problems with (alleged) sockpuppets, and yet it looks like the "official" method of dealing with sockpuppetry. Is there some other method users should be following? Should WP:SSP even exist, since it doesn't seem to get regular attention from administrators? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe regular users can do everything that needs to be done on that page. If the community discussion indicates a need for admin action, a request for action can be made on a page that admins pay attention to. --JWSchmidt 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I would consider it, but what the heck could I possibly do? Patstuart^talk|edits 07:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars on Transnistria-related articles

A bunch of edit wars broke out today on Transnistria-related articles. The ones I noticed were on Tiraspol, Union of Moldavians in Transnistria, Renewal (Transnistria), Politics of Transnistria, Transnistrian referendum, 2006, War of Transnistria, Transnistria (World War II), and Varniţa, Anenii Noi. I was wondering if some other admins could look into this. I was thinking that blocking both users would be the best solution, but perhaps there are other options. Khoikhoi 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Both users have previously been blocked (by me) because of the constant edit wars between the two of them. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• MariusM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• William Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have been blocked 72 hours each. Note that their block logs are identical, both having been previously blocked 24, then 48, hours for exactly the same behavior. —freak(talk) 06:03, Dec. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Socks

(moved from WP:AN posted it on the wrong board) There have been several socks of Mactabbed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turning up, two of which I have dealt with. Be on the look out for more, I have sprotected Fallout 2, Fallout (computer game) and Somebody Up There Likes Me (film) for a while, because they are the pages the socks are hitting. They have been continually reverting changes to WP:AIV (ie where they have been reported) and abusing popups. Viridae^Talk 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be two new socks of this user operating per their intimate knowledge of articles User:Mactabbed/User:Maior's socks have been editing on and sudden involvement . They are TechJon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rand Integer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 05:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For those wishing to familiarize themselves with who this individual is see Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mactabbed. (→Netscott) 05:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism/reverting on a page

The page Fly like a Raven is constantly being reverted to include rumored and unconfirmed information on a forthcoming album. The user who continues to do this is unregistered, and only an IP address appears in the history. I have reverted the page again, but please keep an eye on it, because I've reverted it several times and it still continues to be vandalized. Rhythmnation2004 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• The users 129.44.234.53 and 71.240.253.89 has now broken the three-revert policy by once again replacing the rumored information. I have reverted the article, once again, to remain neutral. I strongly request that an administrator step in and take care of this nonsense. The user 129.44.234.53 has also repeatedly reverted other pages in attempt to restore vandalism. This users IP should be blocked indefinetely. Rhythmnation2004 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Xenophobia

Are posts like these from User:Nadirali acceptable?

1. [84] Ethnic slurs, nationalist sentiment, coterie formation.
2. [85] Xenophobia
3. [86] Threatening admin Ragib
4. Spamming hate sites [87]
5. Anti-Hindu remarks [88]
6. [89] Baiting
7. [90] Xenophobia and falsehood (History of India has multiple flags)
8. [91] - declares he will edit war together with the help of User:Siddiqui (extremist views per RfC here) Hkelkar 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He continues trolling on Talk:History of Pakistan. See Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hkelkar 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a stern warning. -- tariqabjotu 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note; he seems to have admitted to being a puppetmaster, I would think that would warrant an immediate block, no? -- Chabuk

^{[ T • C ]} 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• While we're on the topic, is the list of "threats to world peace and stability" this user has on his userpage really necessary? It seems to me that it will do nothing except cause disputes. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm... nah. He threatens to become one, but doesn't say that he has. --Kizor 06:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have ganged up against me a third time.Im not stupid enough to ignor that.This whole affair would not have continued had you stopped threatening user:Sadiqui along with calling me a "madrassa student" and vandalizing my comments on the Pakistan talk page.Regarding the "sock puppet",I only have one account.I lost my temper at ragib because I was under the impression that he was taking sides against me.As for the flags,you probably never heard of free speech.User:Szhaider has similar content on his user page.I also find it curious that you HelklerHekler and your freinds happen to post approximately the same time when attacking me or other Pakistani wikipedians with your anti-Pakistan sentiments.Is falsly reporinting me to an administrator while hiding your own violations your way of getting back at me?Nadirali 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali Let's talk about Xenophobia then: "where did you read this? In a Pakistani madarassa? C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the Vedic civilization. Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education. --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)" Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian? Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law. They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them. they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls. I think education is the key to solving this problem. that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore[92](Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS)[93][94]. [95].Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Here's your Xenophobia.Hope I didnt scare you by revealing all the racist stuff you posted along with demonizing Pakistanis.Nadirali 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

• Oh for goodness sakes. Wikipedia is not a message board. You've both violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I think both these users could use a short time-out. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering[96] and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond)[97].This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I [98]. Hkelkar 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned [99], effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war)[100].Hkelkar 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not going to say much.But people should know that it was not I who started the personal attacks.And regarding the "formation",that's exactly what Hklelkar and his fellow nationalists do by posting together and attacking other wikipedians such as me.That's all I have to say.ThankyouNadirali 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

To pipe in, I've had conversation with this fellow a few times and his tone seems to me to be unapologetically contentious, xenophobic, paranoid, rife with a sense of persecution, ultra-nationalistic, anti-Indian, anti-Hindu, and generally trollish. Top that off with bad spelling, grammar and punctuation/space usage, and a strong inclination to delete other people's comments on talk pages and/or edit them (by changing copy or interspersing his own commentary), and I am beginning to think this guy is going to be a thorn in the side of most people he decides to disagree with (which it seems is most people). He demonstrates a lack of good faith and a willingness to play tit-for-tat over perceived slights (i.e., comments that disagree with his opinions or make note of his behavior). Taking him at face value he seems to be genuine in his rationale, and not just being disruptive for sport. But he should probably be watched closely and given more serious consequences for continuing his unpleasant behavior.

By the way, some of the comments above ARE baiting, and not constructive. If you don't like this guy's approach, don't comment on his background. Comment on his approach. I understand that discussions of South Asian religion and politics can be rocky, but don't feed a troll like this guy. If you want to debate these issues, at least keep ad hominem comments out of it. Erielhonan 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hkelkar is banned for a year for other reasons. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

24.174.181.96 (talk · contribs) and Gretagolding (talk · contribs)

Looking at their contribution history, they seem to be spamming multiple pages with references to Jade Esteban Estrada. Thoughts? Gzkn 03:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would try saying something to them first, and asking for the problem. It looks to me like the guys is trying to promote himself, or perhaps an overzealous fan. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Images on Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

The article for Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident has been protected due to edit warring regarding the permissibility of two images – Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg and Image:Gaza morgue .jpg – with disputed fair-use rationales. Some have complained that part of the reason the images ought to be removed is that they are meant to play on people's heartstrings rather than be informative. However, in an attempt to contest this theory, Striver (talk · contribs) has posted fourteen pictures used in other Wikipedia articles to the article's talk page – related to The Holocaust, 9|11, and the Armenian Genocide. At least one editor complained about the images, and I agreed with his sentiment. I believe the display of the images are pushing a WP:POINT violation, as they appear merely there for shock value (and, ironically, pulling on heartstrings). It looks like the approach was something along the lines of compared to those fourteen gruesome images, the two images for this article are nothing, which, in my opinion, is not an appropriate approach to deciding the correctness of a fair-use rationale. So, my question is, should these images be removed from the talk page or am I just over-reacting? -- tariqabjotu 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

While not an admin, I took a look at the page in question. That entire talk page is absolutely filled with violations of everything from WP:POINT to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOT. The images of the Armenian Genocide (I didn't see any there from the Holocaust) and from 9/11 serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with. On the subject of the pictures, the gaza morgue image is clearly irrelevant as it could just as easily be a picture of people crying in any city in the world on any random occasion. While I could be convinced as to the relevance of the blood image, simply standing on its own in the article would not give it any useful purpose. In contrast, if there were images available of Israeli troops during the event itself, or some other topical image from the event itself, I could see its relevance more surely. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The images under Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident#Request for Comment are from the Holocaust. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here due to a message from Tariqabjotu, so thanks for the notice.

I dispute that edit warring is regarding the fair use ratinal of the pictures, that is in my view a obvious distraction that will no succed: any one who is impartial will recoqnize that they fullfill all the cirteria for fair use.If they indeed would have been fair-use breach, one of them would not have been undeleted after i took it to deletion review, complaining that "one" admin had deleted it out of process, and that it indeed was fair use.

WP:POINT is not applicable since it states that one should not disrupt wikipedia to make a point. The other pictures are not there to make a point, they are there as an argument. That is a huge difference. If my article gets deleted, and i afd another article, that would be POINT, ie to do something one in reality does not endorse, to prove its inappropriateness. The additional pictures serve no such purpose, they are not there to demonstrate the inappropriateness of anything. WP:POINT would be to go to Holocaust, 911 and Armenian Genocide, and removing those pictures arguing that they are "pulling on heartstrings" (what a nonsensical made up rule!). So no, POINT is not applicable.

"They apear for shoch value". C'mon, if they were shock site-picture, they would not be on wikipedia to start with. They are on stable articles and nobody is disputing their appropriateness on those articles - it is very weak to argue that they are appropriate on article main space, but not appropriate on a talk page regarding a dispute of the appropriateness of war time pictures.

"serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with". Is "to debunk an opinion which they disagree with" not enough reason in it self? C'mon, we are talking about a talk page, talk pages are there to present arguments and debunk false arguments.

Regarding the validity of including any individual picture in that article, this is not the place to comment or respond to comments regarding that, the article talk page exists for that. Further, i would like to make clear that i am the one actively engaged in trying to find a solution to this problem. I talk on the talk page, i invited third parties. When that did not work, i created a RFC. Now, this did not work either, and i have filed a request to the Mediation Cabal. understand that i am working in accordance to policies and guidelines and have no interest in breaching either of them, it is me that is following the dispute resolution process, it is not me that is unitarility deleting images out of process, it is not me that is removing peoples comments and arguments in the talk page and it is not me that have been warned and blocked for incivility and revert wars, rather, it is me reporting those kinds of behaviors. Further, i want to make clear that i am not the only one advocating the right to present the images on the talk page as arguments, at least two other users have supported their inclusion. That is the talk page, that is were we present arguments. And those are pictures used on Wikipedia articles, so how could they be good enough for an article, but be "to shocking" on a talk page? Are we going to deny one side the ability to present arguments in good faith? Peace. --Striver 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see this to understand what kind of opposition we are facing. It is a challenge on its own to not loose patience when seeing those things. adding to the incivility and that people try to side-step the main issue by invoking fair use disputes and denying one side to present arguments is not helping either. This is a highly infected debate, and it would not surprise me if i will be forced to go all the way in the dispute resolution process. --Striver 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've been tangentially involved in similar disputes, which may make me slightly biased, but if this one is anything like any of the others, I'll have to say back up Striver. This appears to be yet another example of the ridiculous Israel POV-warriors vs. ridiculous the Muslim POV-warriors, not about FU. While I was on a similar page, I felt people were using excuses to get each image suggestion removed, and it doesn't surprise me that the fair-use criteria has come up on this page either. Striver was doing nothing more than saying, "hey, look, these other images are part of WP articles, so why shouldn't this article have one?". Because it was not a FU argument, but a content argument (or at least, Striver saw it that way), this was not a WP:POINT violation, but a reasonable request. That's my two cents, I may be wrong, but it's what it seems to me. All said, I wouldn't mind seeing every Israel-Arab article on this entire encyclopedia full-protected until people learn to work out their differences. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree it's not a Fair Use issue, but I do think that it is a valid content dispute... though by definition that would then not be dealt with here. To make it seem like it's cut-and-dry though, as Striver seems to be doing, is fallacious. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• That being said, Striver, you could have just linked to the images, rather than displaying them, which was kind of untasteful. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've said on the talk page already there is a serious fair use problem with putting the images on the talk page (at minimum). Furthermore, I'll note that the dif Striver gave is from an anon using a dynamic IP who all editors (even the more pro-Israel ones) are reverting on sight- the user has been blocked for personal attacks twice before. That dif is not a representative sample of the situation. JoshuaZ 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this was not a query about the fair-use images for the article, but rather the display of the Holocaust, 9|11, and genocide images on the talk page. I won't stop you from discussing the fair-use images, though. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I have no idea what to make of User:Ambarawa putting {{indefblockeduser}} and {{vandalblock}} on his talk page. [101] But whether he's a vandal or not, can someone please explain to him again why copy-and-paste moves are verboten? He moved Grammy Award to Grammy Awards again after I told him not to. Kimchi.sg 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have fixed the move. Feel free to do an actual move if you feel that the plural is the better title. Viridae^Talk 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not encounter the page until yesterday, but going by Talk:Grammy Award it appears that there's agreement to keep it singular. Kimchi.sg 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I left this comment on the user's talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image backlog..

I'm not sure this is the place to mention it, but there is a huge backlog here--Vercalos 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Images for deletion are normally left up for a period of five days before being processed, so those still have a couple more days. -- tariqabjotu 04:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Block User 70.187.141.135 Please

This IP number constantly vandal Marriage (conflict) page with this passage:

	HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A CIVIL RIGHT TO MARRY, NO ONE CAN SAY WHO WE CAN OR CANNOT MARRY! MARRIAGE ISN'T ALL ABOUT PROPREGATION, IT IS ABOUT LOVE BETWEEN TO PERSONS

--Calupict! 05:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is normally a case to report to WP:AIV. However, you'll have to warn him first, which I'll do for you. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dragong4

I just blocked User:Dragong4 for 24 hours, after he was reported to AIV, for various unnecessary comments on the talk pages for North Korea and the Village Pump. You can see them in the difs of his recent contributions. This user has been blocked several times before, most notably a 6-month block in June which was lifted after a month. Should I have givenh im a longer block, or not blocked him at all for these comments? Thanks for your comments. Academic Challenger 06:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sniffing the user creation log, finding offensive usernames

Hi there!

I've more offensive usernames to report:

• SAPTAM HIMU - all caps username, possibly vandal account; perhaps a sock of:
  • MANOJSHETH (both accounts created 5 minutes apart)
• Dipanjan majumdar2007 -- username too long
• Chanakya666 -- possibly religously offensive username per '666', the Mark of the Beast per Christians.

If you feel I've got my arguments wrong, just don't block those users. Cheers!

Yuser31415 06:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As no kind of expert whatsoever, I have to disagree with dipanjan - it's long, but not all that long, and to my knowledge there's no stated limit. Besides, CSCWEM got away with it. --Kizor 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these usernames appear to violate the username policy. SAPTAM HIMU has no contribs, and neither does MANOJSHETH, and therefore they can't be vandal accounts (there is also no evidence MANOJSHETH created the other account). The number "666" by itself does also does not violate the username policy. I'm not blocking any of the names - please assume good faith in the future. --Coredesat 07:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What about admin MONGO (talk · contribs)? Patstuart^talk|edits 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm against blocking any of these too. The last 3 appear to be Indian names. Manoj is a popular Indian name, Sheth is a popular surname. Same for Dipanjan Majumdar. See Chanakya for the significance of the 3rd name. I wouldn't block anyone for just 666. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Action sought against Sc4704

Sc4704 has been persistently inserting unreferenced filmography information into several articles connected with WP:INCINE, most notably Shah Rukh Khan, Hrithik Roshan and The Mahabharata (full contribution list here). See (diff1) (diff2) (diff3) (diff4) for examples.

He has continued inserting unreferenced and disputed information after requests for several clarification were placed on his talk page by several editors. He is unresponsive to dialog and continues to insert unsourced information.

After his most recent edit I placed a {{subst:needsource2|username}} on his userpage and also warned him that further violations would result in this complaint. He completely ignored this as usual and again re-inserted unsourced information (diff). Administrators, please take action as per the guidelines at WP:DE. Thanks. - ekantiK ^talk 06:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ekantik. Tried to talk to Sc4704, but he again placed unverfied information on Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam‎ and a made-up movie on Salman Khan's page. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Xenanthropism

The article Xenanthropism is absolute nonsense with a single google hit from a MySpace blog and the article is a copyright violation of that blog [102]. The author, Blazingnikons (talk · contribs), continued to remove the speedy tag and after a series of warnings suddenly has supporters: Philophile (talk · contribs) and Sumyunggui4thgt (talk · contribs) whose edits consist of removing the speedy tag and then writing on the talk page summaries that basically consist of oh I've heard of this, you should keep it. There is clear sockpuppetry here but it doesn't yet meet criteria for a checkuser. Can the page be protected until an admin looks at it for speedy? It is driving me nuts to have to keep putting the tag back on as brand new users show up and remove it. Amor fati (talk · contribs) showed up and removed it with the edit summary of I have deemed that I have grounds to remove all notices of speedy deletion, since I, myself, did not create this page but do not feel that it meets criteria for speedy deletion which is just absolute nonsense. IrishGuy ^talk 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... We also have SliverTissue (talk · contribs) who spammed it across several pages.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied the article for copyvio and protected it for the time being to prevent further disruption. I've left the talk page alone for now, as it might be useful to deal with the socks. Sandstein 09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...and would some more experienced admins please attend to the socks? My feeling is to final-warn or block the original author (he's also created Xenantropism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a personal attack page, now also speedied) and to block the evident socks, but I've no time now to hunt for the appropriate templates... Sandstein 10:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

{{suspsock}}, {{blockedsock}}...—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Philophile (talk · contribs) has recreated the article as Xenanthopism. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. --Wasell 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, all blocked/deleted now, thanks! Any admin who thinks this is too harsh may undo these actions at will. Sandstein 11:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. IrishGuy ^talk 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) has now confirmed via CheckUser that User:Blazingnikons == User:Philophile but not User:Amor fati. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

complaint: Wikistalking

I weant to complain about 71.139.38.76 who has for some time been tracking my edits and blanking them. This mystery person seems to have no new materials to add, and seldom comments--for example major reverts are called "typo". Recent blanking = Timeline of United States diplomatic history Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. (many, many blankings); Henry Morgenthau, Jr., etc. Rjensen 09:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I found one bad faith revert ([103]), which I have warned the IP about. The rest seem to be content disputes, with explanatory edit summaries, and I it may be best to discuss them on the talk pages of the articles, or with the IP directly via their talk page, rather than get dragged in to reverting one another. I wouldn't call it stalking, as the IP has reverted other people on various articles, not just yourself. Proto::► 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

IP range vandalism

OK, this I'm not too comfortable handling on my own yet. It looks like we have one vandal operating from the 193.113.200.* range whose IP address is changing every time s/he edits. (See this page history; User:193.113.200.231 was just blocked for vandalism as well.) What's the appropriate course of action? A very short-term block on the range? Just hold on and see if it stops? Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SSS108 keeps on revealing real name of user:Ekantik

SSS108 (talk · contribs) keeps on revealing the real name of Ekantik (talk · contribs) on talk:Sathya Sai Baba. User:Ekantik is a self-admitted sockpuppet of Gaurasundara (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekantik.

User:Ekantik has requested SSS108 twice not to reveal his real name [104] [105]. I also warned SSS108 not to reveal a person’s real name [106]

In spite of this user:SSS108 continues to reveal user:Ekantik real name and has stated the intention of keep on doing this. See talk:Sathya Sai Baba. I had not a clue who user:Ekantik was before SSS108 stated his opinion about it.

User:SSS108 justifies his behavior by saying that his identity was revealed too by others. I admit that I Andries (talk · contribs)have revealed user:SSS108’s real name too even after he requested me not to do so, but this is because user:SSS108 keeps on revealing his real name himself even after he requested me not to reveal his reveal his name. This was found okay by the arbcom decision regarding Sathya Sai Baba. SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya#Publishing_of_personal_information andWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence#Complaint_by_SSS108_about_Andries_divulging_personal_information_about_SSS108

I suggest that user:SSS108 is warned. Andries 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed in a prior ArbCom case, Andries is the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website on the internet opposing Sathya Sai Baba ([107]). Andries directly promotes, endorses and publishes Ekantik's Anti-Sai writings (under his name of Sanjay Dadlani) on his Anti-Sai website. When ProEdits/Robert Priddy (another Anti-Sai Activist who is Andries friend) divulged the full name of Freelanceresearch, not once did he object or complain about the publishing of personal information. Andries is trying to suppress the fact that Anti-Sai Activists, who have a keen agenda against Sathya Sai Baba, are editing the article incognito.

Ekantik had every opportunity to choose usernames that would not identify him with the Sai Controversy. Unfortunately for him, he choose to use the name "Gaurasundara", which directly links him to the Sai Controversy because he uses that very same name on the internet (which he recently changed then re-changed on one of his blogs in an attempt to suppress this fact).

Before discovering his sockpuppetry, Ekantik was directly asked by Jossi if he considered himself a POV editor ([108]) and Ekantik said "no" ([109]). Needless to say, this response flies in the face of "Ekantik's" numerous blogs against Sathya Sai Baba and Sai Proponents (one even specifically attacking me and my edits here on Wikipedia) and thousands of highly defamatory, derogatory, sexually-explicit and grotesque accusations and comments against Sathya Sai Baba on various Yahoo Groups and forums.

Despite Ekantik's extra-Wikipedia online behavior and using a known name on Wikipedia that identifies him with Sai Controversy, he is attempting to suppress this information and portray himself as a neutral party who does not have a POV to push and that his interest in the Sathya Sai Baba article is innocent and without bias. Fortunately, his identity was discovered before he pushed forward his edits incognito. It is also important to point out that despite his self-professed neutrality, all of his edits revolve solely around the Sai Controversy.

If you would like for me to support all of my above comments, I am more than willing to create a page that highlights Ekantik's Anti-Sai Agenda against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, along with a list of all his blogs, public claims about a prime participant in Paul Lewis' newspaper article against Sai Baba and a sampling of his unbelievably vitriolic accusations and comments against Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. All I can say is that you won't believe your eyes when you compare his Wikipedia persona with his Anti-Sai persona on the internet. Needless to say, Andries defence of Ekantik is for a reason. He is attempting to suppress the fact that the most vocial opponent of Sathya Sai Baba is attempting to edit the article incognito. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any name of user:Freelanceresearch that I believe to be her real name. User:ProEdits did not reveal her real name but another internet user name. User:Freelanceresearch made her other internet username as mentioned by user:ProEdits quite clear by her behavior in Wikipedia. In contrast, I had not a clue who user:Ekantik was, though I am familiar with all the main internet proponents and detractors of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I told SSS108 that if he finds sockpuppets of the user, send them our way, but to not use the real names of editors unless they published it on Wikipedia before themselves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few points: My sockpuppet is legitimate (see Sockpuppetry allegations). The name of my sockpuppet (Gaurasundara) is not connected with any Sai controversy because I do not use it in connection with said controversy. I use it in connection with matters of Hindu religion. As I have already discussed on the Sockpuppetry page, SSS108 is heavily biased in favour of Sathya Sai Baba and is also a noted defamer of critics and apostates of the Baba. He will (rightly) claim that I have a bias and make reference to extra-Wikipedia activites, but he fails to realise that extra-Wikipedia matters hardly figure in matters of article editing, especially since I am dedicated to NPOV and factual editing cleanup and maintenance in several other articles that I am involved. SSS108'S claims of bias refer to extra-Wikipedia matters and hasn't got a leg to stand on; my one edit see here on the Sathya Sai Baba page was a cleanup of POV, correction of bad grammar and removal of a defunct sentence.

Furthermore, it has been pointed out several times that SSS108 is using Wikipedia to carry on a personal battle in violation of WP:NOT, and continues to reveal my identity despite being requested several times not to do so by several editors (diff1) (diff2). He does not respect the right to privacy and this is a blockable offence. Please send me a message on my talk page if anything needs clarificaiton. Thank you. ekantiK ^talk 03:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a {{subst:Pinfo4|username}} template on SSS108's page. ekantiK ^talk 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:BhaiSaab

The user just announced that he left Wikipedia, arguing injustice. Is there merit in his complaints? If yes, does he deserve an official apology? That case is new to me, but it does seem to be in need of some scrutiny. --Striver 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is in the business of issuing Official Apologies. If BhaiSaab feels wronged, he should use the dispute resolution processes which offer a number of ways to discuss the issue. He is free to leave too if he prefers that option. Weregerbil 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab is about to be come under a year's banning from this proposed ArbCom decision. I think he's making rather valid points on his talk page though. (→Netscott) 18:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a kurt response, did you two tangle Aksi? (→Netscott) 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No. But I don't feel that we should be wasting more time on the Bhaisaab-Hkelkar case. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the response. (→Netscott) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we did tangle when Aksi warned me once for insinuating that Hkelkar is a sockpuppet of Subhash. I have not announced that I am leaving Wikipedia. I am being banned. Do I think it's not fair? Yes, but honestly who cares? Arbcom does not go back on its decisions as far I'm aware and there is nothing that can change their decision. And I do agree that there should be no more time wasted. I just wanted to share my perspective on my banning on my talk page. That is all. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As uninvolved users in this dispute, you may tend to feel sorry for him considering his emotional farewell before the "execution". But this case has passed through the scrutiny of numerous admins and the decisions have been approved by a majority of arbitrators. Please have faith that their decisions or review the case yourself if you are dissatisfied. --Srikeit 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the length of the evidence page, I feel the arbitrators have not scrutinized this case at all (and I would understand why they don't want to do all that reading). I presume they think my behavior is some sort of erratic response to nothing, and I also believe that they think that no one was aware of the sockpuppetry until close to the beginnings of the arbcom case. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

5 arbitrators voted. isnt it over?Bakaman 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say this Bhai, but if you're going to leave, then just leave. This marks the second deletion of your userpage in just over two weeks, and it seems to be more about getting attention for your cause than actually leaving. You are free to defend yourself, but these pretend departures are not the appropriate way. And, to be honest, I'm not convinced by your defense; anti-Semitic remarks are offensive, no matter who they are being directed at. It's unfortunate you do not realize that. -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of one's userpage is just that. Where did I say I'm leaving? If you take anti-Israel remarks as anti-Semitic, that's your problem. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia was moved to Republic of Czechoslovakia on 30 November by Domino theory (talk • contribs), leaving Czechoslovakia as a redirect. Subsequently Themightyquill (talk • contribs) changed the page to a dab. Needless to say, several thousand links were left pointing to the dab page. I reverted today when I noticed it. Juro (talk • contribs) and Zundark (talk • contribs) have reverted me. Well I'm not going to edit war over it. Perhaps I'm being dense, but it seems to me that unless the people that want a dab page are willing to fix the links, the convenience of readers should come first. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason we've separated the article on Czechoslovakia into three parts? I don't believe we've done that with other countries. Soviet Union is one article, for example. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason appears to be that Domino theory thought it was a good idea, apparently pissing off the other editors mentioned. I'd have thought that the answer would be reeducate Domino Theory and revert everything to the way it was on November 29 or thereabouts. I'm not sure it's that simple; presumably Themightyquill, et al, would have done that if it was. The multiple-articles situation is old, what's new is whacking great chunks out of ex-Czechoslovakia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, we need to put everything back together. An article division/redirect like that should be done with the consensus of the editors involved. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone wants a disambiguation page. Certainly I don't. But the redirect was even worse. Fortunately, MrDarcy has restored the article now, so the problem is solved. --Zundark 08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Complex vandalism?

Bowser Koopa (talk · contribs) was blocked November 24 for blatant vandalism to several pages, including John Cena. A few days later, I blocked Bowser, King of the Koopas (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet of Bowser Koopa (this sock vandalized the same pages including John Cena). The Showster (talk · contribs) shows up and starts a category page about the vandal. The Showster was actually created within 10 minutes of the creation of Bowser, King of the Koopas, and concentrated on wrestling articles too (but didn't vandalize). With the veracity in which The Showster was creating (and recreating after it was deleted) the category page, I had some suspicions about the user's intentions and posted this to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive152#Bowser_Koopa. Steel359 deleted the category but wasn't so sure about the sockpuppet part. In addition, You're The Man Now Dog (talk · contribs) was helping The Showster out with the category. You're The Man Now Dog was also created within the same 10 minute span of The Showster and Bowser, King of the Koopas on November 27th. You're The Man Now Dog was blocked a few days ago for vandalism to, among other wrestling pages, John Cena.

Now, The Showster has posted on his talk page that he is blocked under an autoblock because of Crazy Commander (talk · contribs)'s block. What was Crazy Commander blocked for? Vandalism to the John Cena article.

Can some other admins look at this too? It really does seem like all the users are the same person. Metros232 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: They've all been blocked as socks. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bowser Koopa‎ returned a bunch of socks and an IP address that have been blocked. John Cena has been unprotected. Bowser Koopa claims himself a martyr. And all the world's a happy place. Metros232 14:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected identity theft

Has User:Deltabeignet been hijacked by a vandal? See User talk:Deltabeignet#Two more unexplained reverts to vandalism and neighboring sections for incidents. — Sebastian 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, does anyone read this? The user now replied, which could be a good sign. However, the reply looks not like what you would expect from of an experienced editor of over 8000 edits. — Sebastian 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Possible sock puppeteer

User:Kyo cat and I suspect that Monsterty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppeteer/sock puppet master of Kyo Cat 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Monsterty had vandalized the Sasuke Uchiha article and Kyo cat stepped in to revert their edit and warn the user. We believe that from there, the user created a file to impersonate Kyo cat's but I reported them and they were then blocked indef. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could look into this and block Monsterty if necessary (it shouldn't be too hard). Thank you for your time. // Sasuke-kun27 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kyo cat 2's blocked.--SUIT 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Highly offensive userpage

This user's page [110] is blatantly offensive to Muslims, pagans, and homosexuals, to name only a few groups mentioned therein. My reading of [[111]] regarding "Polemical statements" seems to indicate that Dwain's page is in clear violation of the userpages policy. 141.154.220.74 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

His user page does not seem offensive at all; nor can I see any mention of muslam. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's the quote. That said, he doesn't say much more than what a lot of people say about Christianity, and "to name only a few" seems groundless. --Kizor 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, see the quotation on the very top of the page for what is being referred to there. Newyorkbrad 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and the reporting IP probably also means the bolded "quotes" towards the bottom. 141.154.220.74, please first try to resolve this issue by discussing it with User:Dwain himself before alerting administrators. Sandstein 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not User:Pitchka, but User:Dwain, which is where the user actually complained (contribs show this). I have no idea why the link is different, but Dwain also maintains a very polemical Freemasonry page linked from his user page that borders on libel, as he has inflammatory statements regarding Freemasonry placed right before a list of Masons on Wikipedia. MSJapan 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be both: User:Pitchka seems to be the main account that does most of the 'real' editing, but that account's user and talk page redirect to the secondary account, User:Dwain, which is used mainly for userspace edits. the user also signs with a piped link that reads 'Dwaian', but links to 'Pitchka', which redirects back to 'Dwain.' Is that kosher? It seems like it would just cause confusion, as above, and make it more difficult to access the contribution history of the editor you're dealing with. -- Vary | Talk 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the quotes should be removed. He's entitled to his opinion, but this is a bit too much. Khoikhoi 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He also seems to enjoy in a little libel himself every once and a while. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADwain&diff=92489363&oldid=92436162 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dwain&diff=prev&oldid=92436062 Ours18 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the precedent regarding this sort of behavior I think an indefinite ban is in order. We wouldn't tolerate this kind of misbehavior from a new user, why should we tolerate it from User:Dwain? The Mirror of the Sea 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This man is a dick. However, the views he is expressing on his userpage are typical devout American Catholic opinions - you can't block him for that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been made clear that maintaining a userpage with controversial material designed to be polemical is trolling and can be punished for as such. Need I also mention that he deliberately libels Wikipedians who are also Masons? That seems like deliberately disruptive conduct. The Mirror of the Sea 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was saying that his userpage, as it stands, is not offensive but religious. If he's disrupting the wiki, sure, ban him, but blocking him for being devout and/or redneck isn't a good idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it offensive. I find it to be a deliberate bit of trolling intended to incite disruption. That is not what wikipedia is for. After all the stuff that went on in the userbox wars, it seems patently obvious to me that polemical and uncivil material is not welcome on wikipedia, in ANY space.--Vidkun 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling it a "typical devout Catholic opinion" is a bit of an over-generalization... My experience with Dwain/Pitchka has been that he has virtually no understanding or regard for WP:CIVIL, but if we start indef blocking for that, there are an awful lot of editors and admins who wouldn't be editing here anymore. I do think one of his accounts should be blocked though because he edits from both of them and it is damn confusing if you aren't watching very closely to discern those accounts are the same person. To be clear, I've never seen him do any abusive sockpuppeting, but unless he has a very good reason for running two accounts he should be given the option of keeping one active and having the other locked. He can link to the contribs for the other account from the userpage of whichever account he choses to stick with. From what I see there is no good reason he has two accounts.--Isotope23 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see any user blocked for his religious beliefs or lack thereof. As far as I can see, the paramount issue here is the use of two accounts for one editor, which I believe is verboten. Let's ask him to stick to one account, and handle any mainspace issues as they occur. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of highly offensive userpages, does this qualify? riana_dzasta 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, slow down here. Indef ban? I've seen people put pornography on their pages and not get indef banned. He was expressing his personal opinion, albeit it with the tact of a hammer. Wikipedia policy says he needs to remove it, but an indef ban is going way overboard. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that recommendation was based not just on the user's userpage content, but on his refusal to remove the offensive material. He has removed several messages about the content from his talk page without responding to them, and with edit summaries like 'removed devil worshiping anons statment'. I agree that an indef block might be a bit harsh when the user has never been blocked before and has made constructive contributions, but this is about more than just userpage content. -- Vary | Talk 14:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Get some perspective. It looks like all the complaints really are about "just userpage content". There have been admins and would-be admins who have posted their disdain for Christians on their user pages and elsewhere. I do not share this guy's views, but they are his business and well within the range of statements to be found on userpages. I, for one, consider the tolerance here for the posterior orifice who professed his admiration for Osama bin Laden infinitely more offensive than this (yes, the tolerance expressed here for it, not just the box itself). Lots of people have alternate accounts: as long as they are not used in the same conversations they are not sockpuppets and not against policy. Not everyone in the world is "politically correct" and you need to deal with it when it creates a problem in articles, not just its existence on userpages. alteripse 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, his name is Dwain. He chose the username Pitchka, and then discovered that it meant something offensive in some other language. He didn't want to abandon the account, so he created the account Dwain. (If that's not exactly how it was, it's still fairly close, I think.) Yes, he has things on his user page that are confrontational. I don't endorse them, but I don't find them any more offensive than some of the things that other users have posted on Wikipedia about Christians. As for blocking him, that's absurd. He's a good-faith editor, who sometimes gets annoyed when people are trolling and harassing him. A few months ago, he removed a message or some messages from his talk page — something which is not forbidden by policy, and which many administrators do — and within hours, users were descending on him, reverting, sending him template warnings about vandalism, and making him even more annoyed. I've seen numerous insults aimed at Christians here on Wikipedia, and I have never even considered blocking the users. I think we need to move from an "I'm-not-going-to-let-him-get-away-with-it" mentality to one of "it's-not-urgent-to-get-rid-of-it-and-I-don't-want-to-make-matters-worse." I would suggest that someone who hasn't already been hassling him might suggest nicely that it would be better not to have those quotations since they might offend some people. AnnH ♫ 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely agree. During the userbox wars, it was flat out verboten to have polemical attack user boxes, be they anti Christian or anti anything else. Listing a number of people for whom you have distaste (based on their associations) and then accusing them of trying to prevent verifiable information from being added to wikipedia is assuming bad faith. Repeatedly referring to those who have attempted to discuss the polemics as being devil worshipping vandals is BEYOND overbaord, and shows that the editor is more concerned with disruption and insults that what is or isn't encyclopedic.--Vidkun 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Moronisatosser

I saw this name, Moronisatosser (talk · contribs), pop up editing Gaby Hoffman. Content dispute possible on the page, where I removed trivia based on WP:AVTRIV and suggested that it be inserted into the article instead. I also removed an unsourced picture, which was eventually deleted under CSD-I4. This new user, whose name may be a correaltion to my edits, has uploaded the image again, still without a source. Any admins care to comment? Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I, User:Cute 1 4 u wish to edit constructively. And please unblock Captin Fucko (talk · contribs), he was my friend.

No more spamming etc... User:Cute 1 4 u as --66.79.168.98 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Captin Fucko was blocked in June of 2006, but he will not be unblocked because of the choice of username. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User Vml675

Could another admin please review and intervene in a situation regarding Vml675 (now mainly editing as Circustop (talk · contribs)) and his or her single issue socks. Despite numerous warnings, the editor consistantly removes sourced content [112], to suit a pro-POV [113] and introduce copyright material [114] to Robina Qureshi using a number of accounts [115] [116]. There is also the recent development of accusatory edit summaries [117]. As the only other major editor to the article that all the socks edit almost exclusively, I do not wish to use admin tools personally. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fijian coup and genocide

I am concerned about the actions of RoddyYoung (talk · contribs), who has posted a paragraph suggesting that a genocide is likely in Fiji in the articles Fiji, Frank Bainimarama and 2006 Fijian coup d'état without any supporting sources. I have removed his posts to these three articles. He posted the same or similar material on all three talk pages, and I tried to move the discussion to the one I thought most relevant (and which is also likely to be the highest traffic page at present), Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état. He reposted some of the material at Talk:Fiji, and added a section on "Laws" to the Fiji article containing only the genocide law. I have now asked him three times to stop posting such material implying a future genocide and to restrict his posts to the Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état page, but he has failed to comply.

I have asked for sources. His responses can be seen on my talk page User talk:gadfium#Genocide_Potential and at Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état. His sources are to the Fijian law against genocide, to an Amnesty International report saying that law could be improved, and to a Radio New Zealand report on possible genocide in West Papua. None of these suggest that an upcoming genocide in Fiji is likely. I'd welcome some more eyes on the situation.-gadfium 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nadirali (talk · contribs), Hkelkar (talk · contribs), et, al.

(Pakistani user) Nadirali (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly warned for his incivility and personal attacks. I posted a {{npa4}} warning to his talk page yesterday after the complaints here at WP:ANI, as well as Ragib (talk · contribs)'s advice suggesting that he cool things down. After further incivility and personal attacks (see additional warnings on his talk page), and particularly this comment, I blocked him for forty-eight hours.

Similarly, (Indian user) Hkelkar (talk · contribs) has been engaging in similar conduct, particularly on Talk:History of Pakistan. After he posted an extensive comment to Talk:History of Pakistan outlining Pakistan's misdeeds, I warned him of his incivility again. He subsequently posted an "apology" on my talk page in which he calls Nadirali (talk · contribs) a "Pakistani nationalist" with "jingoist historical revisionism and blatant propaganda", mocking him with the use of the term "kaffirs" (an often derogatory term to describe non-Muslims from a Muslim point-of-view). As a result, I blocked him for forty-eight hours, as well.

So, I'm seeking confirmation (or whatever the antonym of confirmation is) for these actions. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also the other provocative statements on Talk:History of Pakistan from other users. I have warned a couple of them about their incivility, but things certainly do look heated. I can't even tell if they're discussing the article. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A balanced application of WP:BLOCK was merited here. User:Hkelkar looks to be heading for a year's ban pending confirmation of a motion to close the RfArb he's currently a part of so this 48 hours may be an early application of this proposed ArbCom decision. Unfortunately in the Wiki areas of Religion/Politics/Race its been my experience that this type of incivility is all too common. (→Netscott) 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I support your actions. Though they may feel victimised, such behaviour not being uncommon on the talkpage, it does not excuse their disregard for basic policy. Rockpocket 02:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Nadirali (talk · contribs) had a few run-ins with Kumaranator (talk · contribs) as well. May want to check into that. Netscott is right about "civility", as long as the users aren't obvious newbies, no one even pretends to be civil. Its much too easy for users to make false accusations, insinuations, and sink into personal attacks.Bakaman 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Hkelkar's gone for a year per ArbCom. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

user:kronecker

please warn him, again. He keeps changig my userboxes constantly. He already was warned, but he doesnt stop.--Tresckow 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Warned with test4. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He responded to me with this: Hiya, thanks for the 'last warning'. Upon looking over you're talk page you seem to be a pretty poor administrator. By the time you've read this, I will have fixed Tresckow's user page again. I do believe a blocking is in order. Cheerio; you're a complete and utter dick. And since he vandalized Tresckow's page again, I blocked him 48h for vandalism and personal attacks. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Palestine Liberation Organization

Okay, someone vandalized the talk page of this article through a move. Then someone else attempted to fix the vandalism through another move to Palesitne Liberation Organization (a NON-talk page with a misspelt title). I tried to fix this mess myself but apparently things are so twisted up that I got a message saying that an admin needs to be asked to do the move of the proper talk page content to its proper place. Thanks to the admin taht sorts this out. Bwithh 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done it, since it didn't need an admin. Just needed to be moved through all the intermediate page moves done. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Article J. Edward Anderson created by Ken Avidor

• J. Edward Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ken Avidor is a known opponent (with few scruples) of Dr. Anderson's lifelong goals. I scanned the article and found at least one case of taking a quote out of context. The article focuses on local Minneapolis politics, which is not necessarily appropriate to a discussion of Dr. Anderson's achievements. In order to prevent a minor recurrence of the Siegenthaler incident I suggest a rigorous review of this article. Bob 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Would this not be a case for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Patstuart^talk|edits 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the expert. Wikipedia internals are labyrinthine to me. Bob 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Notability is borderline but there are fans of Anderson's also active on the article. I note that the PRT disputants are once again bringing their battles to Wikipedia, what joy. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fans of Anderson? Laughable! Anyone who doesn't quote the Avidor party line is nothing but a drooling "fan" to you. You will never get it, JzG. ATren

TO be clear, I dont' know anything about PRT. I'm fine with deleting the whole thing. I'm only active on it inasmuch as I found it through my watch of AN/I, and thought it'd be interesting to really clean up and rehab a lousy POV filled article. Avidor continues to add to the article with loaded words, but I've AGF'd and asked him to be careful in the future. My only interest is in editing a bad article into good, not in supporting or opposing PRT. I'm a jersey driver. I can't shoot the bird from PRT, so what do I care about it? ThuranX 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, a year ago, I didn't know the first thing about PRT, but because I got involved and tried to correct blatant POV pushing on the PRT article, I'm now portrayed as a mindless drooling proponent. Don't be surprised if you get the same treatment... ATren 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I liberally delete idiocy off my user talk. I don't really worry about it. And I don't care about PRT, won't care about PRT, and given how voliatile it is, I doubt I'll do much more editing if this survives it's AfD nom. ThuranX 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Politically motivated edits and vandalism

(moved from WP:AIV -- Viridae^Talk 06:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)) Could a few admins please take a look at the history edits of admin. User:JamesTeterenko and User:Pm_shef a.k.a.User:Chabuk I have been watching these users for sometime now (for reasons that I could let you know upon a private email) and both are just making a mockery of wikipedia for political purposes. User:Pm_shef a.k.a. User:Chabuk is the son of a politician and has been slandering and vandalising all of his fathers political competitors and opponents on wikipedia while at the same time building up in a POV style his political supporters. I don’t know whom admin. User:JamesTeterenko is other than being User:Pm_shef a.k.a. User:Chabuk sidekick and enforces his politically motivated edits and vandalism. When another user including admins. makes a positive and factually correct edit to any of these articles User:JamesTeterenko is right there reverting these and most of the time blocking them and/or labelling them as a sock puppet. If some admins could look into this and take the necessary action against these users that would be appreciated. I could also provide details if asked. --PeanutChiselTip 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet of Vaughan Watch, someone with a vendetta against Pm shef.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated violation of WP: Living rules

Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the Nelson Rockefeller entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). Rjensen 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you try Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead (BTW, that story seems a bit silly to me anyway. Unless she was a subtanial beneficiery which seems unlikely, then I'm doubtful anyone would bother to go to the trouble and risk of killing someone. Even if she did have sex with him, at most I would say she didn't care if he died but it seems unlikely she was trying to cause him to die) Nil Einne 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet creating AfDs

New user, must be a sockpuppet with experience creating AfDs that appear to be retaliation against WarthogDemon (talk · contribs) --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you point us to one of the the AfDs? I have come across a user in a dispute with WarthogDemon recently, might be the same one. Viridae^Talk 07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe it's a sock puppet of User:Mr Bullockx. I have no experience with sockpuppets, but the user User:MinervaSimpson seems to be acting the same way. The account was created only an hour ago and almost immediately began putting up articles for deletion, including some of mine (and on those the user has made what appears to be personal attacks). The user also seems to be behaving just the same way as the former user did, (stalking my edits?) and has recently posted copyright work (which has just been deleted). I think this could be a sockpuppet, but since I am not sure and since I also don't want to get into a serious confrontation or a serious bout of bad faith, I'd rather you look it over since I believe you have a little familiarity with this situation. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs). (Sorry; I simply copied/pasted from my talk with ArmadilloFromHell and I forgot that my signature wouldn't update itself...)

Very sorry I left out the crucial info ==> MinervaSimpson (talk · contribs) --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 07:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty obvious sockpuppet to me. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And whom now has just put up a fourth article I have created as an AfD. -WarthogDemon 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

File a checkuser on him. This is clearly a sock - new users don't show up here and start filing AfDs with arguments about notability. I think the appropriate course of action is an indef-block and speedy-keep of bad-faith AfDs, but I'd like one point of more tangible evidence first. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The obvious is never a problem: I blocked MinervaSimpson as a transparently obvious sock. But I did not delete or speedy close the AfDs because whether or not they were victimisation, all have attracted several valid !votes from other editors. I even !voted on one myself. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I closed them all (five in total) as bad-faith nominations. Someone can renominate in good faith if they'd like, but I don't like seeing articles deleted because of who authored them. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User labelling his own sockpuppets

Very strange, but Insineratehymn (talk · contribs) seems to be identifying his own sockpuppets - or maybe it's all a hoax. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 07:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specifics yet, but.... Points for honesty? ;)

If he/she/they openly link the various IDs to each other, and avoid using them on the same topics or voting on the same issues, then as I understand it these become no longer "sockpuppets" but merely "alternate IDs". – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:23, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Yep, he says he's "fessing up to [his] sockpuppets":

• 06:34, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Fatalism, lol (←Created page with `{{sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`) (top)
• 06:34, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Imheadingtothepark (←Created page with `{{sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`) (top)
• 06:33, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:ScoutMasterLumpas (←Created page with `{{sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`) (top)
• 06:33, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:CampKidney (←Created page with `{{sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`) (top)
• 06:31, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Gokonozo (Fessing up to my sockpuppets) (top)
• 06:28, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Insineratehymn (top)

I don't think the "suspected sockpuppet" template quite describes what should be a "confessed [or admitted] sockpuppet". If there's an approved template for openly declaring an alternate ID, maybe that should be suggested to him – along with guidelines for use or non-use. But it does look like he's trying to come clean, so that should be taken into account. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:45, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Although this may verge on being an assumption of bad faith, maybe it'd be good to get confirmation that they are actually socks of him/her, and not just some reandom users who he is tagging to be annoying. The perfect way is to get him/her to log in to each of them and post a dummy edit confirming what he/she's doing. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll suggest it to him. And I think the approved method is to have redirects on all the secondary IDs' user/talk pages to his primary's, with a list of those IDs on his primary's pages. Yes, surely each ID should login to edit its own pages, as confirmation. Thanks! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:04, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility

It might be nice to note that Cool Cat has been in an unending violation of WP:POINT as of late, and what's more, he makes several of his own personal attacks in the nomination. Could someone please take a look at this and consider some kind of ban? He's surely knows this won't pass, and even his own reasoning says, "I'm tired of incivility, so I nominated this", which is exactly the opposite of the correct reasoning (unless it's a POINT violation, of course). I'm not sure he's not looking to try to get banned, so maybe a longer ban would do. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea on Cool Cat- I leave this to others who know the situation. Closed the Mfd. Friday (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I already had brought this up above. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen someone try so hard to get himself blocked for a POINT violation. He formally requested to be indef'ed. If he's trying this hard to get banned, maybe we could use a nice wikibreak to help him get his wits about him and start contributing right. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I should think that if there was any doubt about Cool Cat's behavior before, by now it is clarified....he's been completely out of line. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I was reading WP:POINT for the first time this morning and laughed out loud when I saw so many don'ts fitting him like a glove! I've been on the far periphery of only a small fraction of the ill will and disruption he has perpetrated and, even at a distance, and as a mildly interested nonparticipant observer, I feel the whiplash effects.

Anyone sensing that (un)Cool Cat has been striving to make a mockery of a system which won't reliably serve his whims on demand is rather perceptive. I am among those who view with disfavour, as well, the lengths to which Bastique has gone to cater to and enable his impulses and tantrums.

What he has been doing is not justifiable. He should have at least a week to a month off, minimum. Athænara ✉ 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a week-long block, with what I hope is a helpful block summary. Please review. Grandmasterka 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed - not that I count as an impartial reviewer. Moreschi 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Child's details

I have heard a few rumblings about this in the past so I thought I'd better post it here. A user, User:Jonaz5197 has posted his personal details on his user page and also uploaded an image of himself Image:ImageName(022).jpg. As he states he is in 4th grade that would make him around 10 years old (if my research is correct) - that would also mean that his username could contain his D.O.B? What is the normal course of action for this? Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

His DOB is in his username: he's also put it in a userbox on his page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

His DOB would be 4197, so not in his username. --Majorly 12:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute kid. One would assume that he has had a parent or guardian's help uploading/editing. Might be advisable to leave a notice on his talk page with the leader "For your mum or dad - please show them and ask them to respond" or similar. We could then warn them of the pitfalls of having a childs details on wiki. However if it is being released with his parents permission then I'm not too sure that it is wiki's problem. Viridae^Talk 12:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, however it might be a better idea for someone else to do it as it is looking a little like I am attacking everything about his edits at the moment and I am feeling uneasy about that. Could someone else post the message please? Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the potentially insecure details. El_C 12:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy should provide guidance on what to do Nil Einne 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you El C and Nil Einne. That was very helpful. -Localzuk^(talk) 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat?

195.229.241.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) left a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies: [118]. He/she said a.o. "The Regulatory Authority REQUIRES that internet connections go through the telecom providers proxy filter, so we have no legal choice in the matter." Does this constitute a legal threat or not? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how that is threatening. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Capslockedly saying that something "requires" a certain action, followed by the conclusion that "we have no legal choice in the matter" leads to the question: no legal choice but to do what? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no threat here. The person is simply saying that in the UAE all internet traffic is required by their law to go through their internal proxies. They are explaining that by blocking UAE IP addresses as open proxies we are blocking significant portions of the country's population from being able to edit due to their requirement to use the proxies.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Users in the UAE have no choice but to use that proxy. It's not like AOL where you can always get a better ISP - all their traffic goes out through government controlled proxies, all the better for blocking objectional material like porno and freedom. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is clearly not intended as a threat. If for example, they were saying, we have no choice so we'll sue you for violating our rights, that obviously would be a threat. But in this case, it's just an explaination Nil Einne 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NB, wil AOL you don't have to change ISP. There are various ways to use AOL, even before the XMM headers was introduced Nil Einne 20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:85.17.45.23 = User:Leaderofall?

I just spotted this edit, which has an entirely dishonest edit summary, and got to looking at the user's contributions which showed this apparent connection to a banned user. Not sure if this is where the report belongs? Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the contribs from that anon, I don't see enough evidence to determine if this is the banned user or not. You could file a checkuser request to see if the IP addresses match. In the meantime, I've placed a {{spam-n}} warning on that anon user's talk page. As long as it's just one silly edit every few days, I don't think any admin intervention is required. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyber Lopez Lt

I beleive Cyber Lopez Lt (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Cyber Lopez Rt (talk · contribs) being used to evade a block. Cyber Lopez Lt began editing the day after Cyber Lopez Rt was blocked, and in addition to the similar user name, has similar edits such as adding his own barnstars ([119], [120]) and editing Tanya Memme. Also may be affiliated with blocked user Cyber Lopez (talk · contribs), whom I just noticed also edited Tanya Memme. Thanks. timrem 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Cyber Lopez Sr (talk · contribs), Cyber Lopez Jr (talk · contribs), and Cyber Lopez Ab (talk · contribs) as well. timrem 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to permablock all of these as sockpuppets and essentially vandalism-only accounts. Any who disagree? Sandstein 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rogue reverter, won't listen or respond

At the recommendation of admin Steve Block, I'm asking on behalf of User:CovenantD, User:Doczilla, other editors and myself who have tried many times and ways to talk and work with a persistent rogue editor, User:Asgardian, over his repeated wholesale reversions to several sites in WikiProject: Comics. He insists he doesn't have to follow the comics project exemplar, he reinserts misspellings and other erroneous edits, he removes authoritative reference sources that I and others have used and cited, and he won't give straight answers to our questions and comments.

There's some discussion about all this at this article's talk page. There had been much more criticism of his edits at User talk:Asgardian — with other editors complaining about his clumsy wholesale edits of Galactus and other articles — but he erases all comments.

Could you suggest a way to go on this? Maybe have a third party compare, for instance, the properly formatted and written version of the short "Awesome Android" article here and Asgardian's consistently reverted, "nyah-nyah-nyah" version here. Just by skimming, not needing to know details of the character, the differences are obvious to the naked eye.

As you can see from these comments he erased from his talk page and retrieved from its History here, here, and here, other editors have tried to speak with him about his wholesale reversions that go against both consensus and editorial policy/guidelines/exemplar. The word "stubborn" comes up a lot in these posts. Several editors are at their wits' ends.

What can we do? Please help us: Dealing with him is taking up so much of so many people's times that could be put to good use writing and helping to improve Wikipedia articles. Thank you so much for any help. --Tenebrae 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Messianic_Judaism#Stepping_down_as_project_lead

Sorry to bother everyone, but I wanted to inform the admins of what has been occurring here. IZAK and inigmatus have been in a disagreement over Messianic Judaism. While both are entitled to their opinion, inigmatus has remained calm and mature about this while IZAK feels the need to belittle inigmatus. This disagreement has been quiet for about a week as inigmatus has not been editing since then, but IZAK felt that he needed to stir the pot a bit and state today: "Keep us posted on any other special messages Hashem sends you, while here on Earth all the other good Jews wait for the real Jewish Messiah to show up. IZAK 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Personally I find IZAK's behavior immature and childish. He has a history of being uncivil when someone disagrees with him. I am a complete outsider in this except that I have emailed inigmatus about 2 weeks ago just to say to keep his chin up in all this. My issue here is that I have seen countless times on here that when people disagree, instead of doing it the right way, it leads to childish and immature behavior. Shouldn't we leave the games to the kids? Anyway, thank you for your time. MetsFan76 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious propaganda of user:inigmatus, as exemplified in the section you qouted, has absolutely no place in wikipedia. We are here to edit encyclopedia, not to provide "this frontline position for Messianic Judaism". Also, his claim "I am stepping down as project leader at the immediate direction of the Lord himself" makes me question either his sanity or neutrality: I would certainly strongly object to have editors here who in their editing are guided by some foreign God rather than by rules of wikipedia. Not to say that we have Jimbo to guide and direct us. :-) `'mikkanarxi 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, inigmatus's sanity is not the issue here. It is IZAK's immaturity and blatant attack on inigmatus. I could care less as to who thinks who is under the direction of the Lord, but immaturity such as IZAK's "has absolutely no place in wikipedia" either. Thank you. MetsFan76 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Complex AfD raising potential trademark or legal issues

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpenPBX_by_Voicetronix. This situation involves allegations that several Wikipedia articles are in violation of trademark rights involving two software projects in Australia with similar names. The dispute appears to go beyond the scope of a traditional AfD discussion and could benefit from review by admins. Newyorkbrad 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL violation, no? | Mr. Darcy talk 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say, it looks like that's the case. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the situation is confusing (someone in Australia might have an easier time figuring out who the players are), but I think that User:Stswp is commenting to the effect that someone else might take legal action, not making a legal threat of his own. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Calltech has recommended deletion for all 3 articles until the legal situation is resolved, a suggestion I heartily concur with. While User:Stswp has adopted a rather confrontational and imperious manner, I don't think he's yet crossed the line into legal threats. It's a close thing though, and he might go over at any moment...Doc Tropics 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal battles are irrelevant here. Even if some of these companies will be banned from using this name, we will still have legal rigths to write "formerly known as..." or "erroneously known as...", or else. And of course, this is an absolutely invalid reason for deletion, but a reason to write these articles very carefully. `'mikkanarxi 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really grok the rambling legalese on this AfD. And I'm not sure we should pay any attention to it until any contention of trademark infringement on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation or of any Wikipedia user is presented in a more coherent fashion by someone actually representing one of the parties in this apparent dispute. Meanwhile, we should just go on with the AfDs, delete OpenPBX by Voicetronix and OpenPBX.org as failing WP:CORP/WP:SOFT and forget about it for now. Sandstein 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy - this section moved here from WP:AIV

Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Andries is a self-professed critic of Sathya Sai Baba and said he will continue to revert the Robert Priddy article [121] despite specifically being warned by Admin to stop [122]. Since the time of Admin's warning, he included the link in defiance of Admin and the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 4 times, 3 times today so far. See: [123][124][125][126]. I have placed 4 warnings on his talk page. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Following the same way of reasoning linking to the homepage of Michael Moore in that article is a violation of WP:BLP because it is defamatory of George W. Bush. Clearly that is exaggerated. Andries 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Content pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba is governed by an ArbCom ruling. Therefore, the ArbCom ruling trumps arguments made on other pages that are not governed by an ArbCom ruling. You have been warned by admin about this and you continue to defy Admin and the ArbCom Ruling and you have no intention on stopping. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I also complained at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement[127] Andries 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Propaganda" trolls back

Looks like the nice folks involved in the "White House Propaganda" thing are still at it; I just removed the manifesto from the Village Pump (News), which was added within about three edits of it being unprotected. Haven't investigated further yet, but be on the lookout. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Again? ...sigh...Doc Tropics 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Brian.Burnell

See User talk:Notinasnaid#little aside. I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but it looks like an incensed user (Brian.Burnell) has possibly contacted the president of another user's (Flammingo) university, seeking to force the latter's expulsion over a dispute over what looks to be ... image tagging over a satirical map. Certainly a ridiculous situation that needs to be defused. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment of this nature is totally unacceptable user conduct demanding immediate action. At a minimum, the user must be strongly reminded of the policy forbidding off-wiki harassment and a promise elicited that such action will not be repeated. In the absence of such a promise, this user should not be welcome to continue editing. Newyorkbrad 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad username

• 20:11, 10 December 2006 Lukasadmin (Talk | contribs) (New user account)

WP:UN#Inappropriate usernames states that a username 'that impl[ies] an official role or a role greater than that of a standard user, such as "Administrator", "Admin", "System operator", "Sysop", or "Moderator"' is forbidden.

Cheers, Yuser31415 20:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. Viridae^Talk 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:VirtualEye's suden scomment stream.

I am concerned about these comments of VirtualEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s:

• [128]
• [129]
• [130]

Neither me nor user:Kitzke are involved with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in any significant way (I corrected a link, he reverted vandalism), and it seems we are intent on remaining so. VirtualEye comments (and general attitudes) are definitely worrying me, though. Circeus 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking that this user's message could be cause for concern as well. So far though there's nothing that would appear to need adminstrator intervention as this user has yet to be disruptive (as far as I can tell). (→Netscott) 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Joel on the SOL edit warring over a rating.

I recently added the LGBT WikiProject tag to Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom and rated it a B-class. Shortly afterwards, I got a short but blunt note from an IP that my rating was unacceptable and had been taken down. Since then, User:Joel on the SOL has repeatedly insulted me, questioned my ability as an editor, made numerous personal attacks and has repeatedly removed the grading(very close to breaking 3RR). Admittedly, I lost my temper at first, but despite my attempts to bring him back to what is actually wrong with the rating, he insists of going off about how utterly unqualified I am to rate articles and that I am a deeply unpleasant user. Regardless of whether that is true or not, I fail to see how this has any bearing on a rating that has been supported by everyone but Joel. Some blocking/warning/input would be nice, because he's taking up both mine and Jeff's time on this deeply stupid dispute, that he won't even address. Argument taking place on my userpage, Jeffpw's talkpage, Joel's talkpage, and of course, Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom itself. I think it's simply a case of one user steadily winding himself up about his baby getting what he sees as a low rating, but if an admin could do something about this, I'd be grateful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I put a note on that user's talk page, asking him to moderate his tone, and warning him again about 3RR. I would encourage you to file a 3RR report if he does it again, and to restore the B rating given the absence of any content-related discussion (as I read that talk page, Joel isn't so much disputing the rating itself as he is refusing to rate the article at all - is that accurate?). | Mr. Darcy talk

Yes, that appears to be what's happening. Thanks for your warning. I'd restore it once more, but I think I'm close to 3RR myself, I'll ask someone else to do it just in case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's accurate. Joel is angry that the article was not rated higher, and is unwilling to discuss his reasons for thinking it should be higher. He ignores all explanations of the GA process, and that "B"is as high as an assessed rating can get (well "A" is possible, in theory, but that is a higher rating than GA and this is not even at GA yet). He states that if it is not rated higher, it may not be rated at all. I will change the rating myself now.Jeffpw 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Talk on this article, there were by Jeffpw's own count three reverts by Joel on the SOL - that does not place anyone over the 3RR limit and now that makes two of you who owe him an apology! 81.159.212.153 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be assuming that you and Joel are not one and the same, of course. Because you also reverted. In any event, I am sure if an admin is interested, he or she can go into the history and see exactly just how many reverts were made, and by whom. Jeffpw 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This anonymous user is almost certainly a sock of User:Joel on the SOL. See Special:Contributions/81.159.212.153; the user has contributed to seven separate articles (excluding AN/I), and Joel on the SOL has edited five of those, with several edits from each user to the talk page under dispute. Regardless, a 3RR warning was issued; if Joel on the SOL violates it again, alone or by using his sock, he'll be subject to a block. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vanessa Minnillo Board

I've been trying to get an editor over to the Vanessa Minnillo board to help with a dispute. In the most recent article of Maxim magazine, Vanessa Minnillo stated she was white and polynesian. People at her board are insistent on saying she is in fact filipino attaching it to sources that have never been identified as reliable. According to the rules of wikipedia, because the interview has proved to be the best source and is the most recent article with Vanessa's actual testements, it makes no sense why they are trying to force her as filipino. 71.138.141.230 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Nishkid64 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael I of Romania - possible sock puppeting?

I'm beginning to suspect that User:Carbunar, User:Parisian2006, User:Stefanp, and User:John Mathis are all the same person. I may be wrong, but all of them focus on the same small set of articles related to the Romanian royal family, and all seem to share an identical POV which I would have thought quite idiosyncratic - anti-communist and anti-monarchist. Both Stefan and Parisian have cited Wikipedia's "undue weight" policy in a rather odd way to justify putting (what is, in my opinion) undue weight on their idiosyncratic POV. So if anyone could check and see if they're all the same person, that'd be nice. Also, if anyone would like to more generally intervene, that'd be good to know. john k 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User John Kenney, in the name of his unreferenced pro-King Michael POVs, keeps vandalizing the Michael I of Romania article. He keeps: 1. eliminating referenced statements, using unacceptable sources (so-called emails, which we all know can be forged) (see, for instance, the 08:02, 10 December 2006 change to the article, explained as follows: "Tom Gallagher most certainly did not say that any such offer was actually made, as he clarified in an email to a wikipedian") ; 2. re-inserting POV and Expert editor warnings, claiming that the article has too many anti-King Michael edits/"POVs", in utter disregard of the NPOV-Undue Weight policy (see the reasons explained in Talk - NPOV and undue weight); 3. blanking a properly referenced statement, which runs counter to his minority pro-Michael views. Please, stop his vandalisms and abusive edits, which try to aggresively impose the minority view on King Michael. Thank you! Stefanp 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A coincidence ?

Today I noticed that someone had posted a PROD tag on an article that I have contributed to. Clicking through to see who pasted it and then seeing this persons contributions revealed that the person registered a few days back and their only contributions are nominations for deletion of articles that I have been contributing to. Have a look: Special:Contributions/Carl_Timothy_Jones. Now I'm not sure what's going on and what to do. Can anyone help? WietsE 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I am not "targetting" you. I explained that 1) I have previously edited anonymously 2) Found your article via Random article and 3) Found your other articles via your list on you user page. I have merely followed the correct procedure for listing articles which I believe cover non-notable people or groups (which, by the way, you seem to be directly involved with).

• When I had earlier explained that I had found your articles from your user page, you then proceeded to directly remove them here. A strange thing to do, perhaps you could explain why. Were you trying to make me look like a liar? You seem to have immediately assumed bad faith, by raising my contributions rather than arguing your case here.

• Furthermore you have now changed you initial accusatory heading to one that is merely sarcastic. Carl Timothy Jones 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:West wikipedia

The second line of this userpage looks to me like a threat. Should I (or anyone else willing to do so) go ahead and remove it? Scobell302 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The part about "no longer uses Wikipedia" is garbage, as there was more vandalism after it was put there. User's been temp blocked and the User Talk page (where s/he was trying to use the same tactic to eliminate warning messages) has been protected. Block will be up in a few hours and we'll see for how long. Fan-1967 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The threat should go, of course.

Beyond that, though, I thought there was kind of a consensus against blocking and page-protecting for "removing warnings" as the warnings are available in the page history. Not sure if that applies when vandalism is still ongoing, though.

While we're on the subject of this editor, is "West wikipedia" an acceptable username given that names implying official connection with the project are barred by the username policy? Newyorkbrad 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)