Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benjamin Gatti (talk | contribs) at 12:40, 13 December 2007 (→‎Soapboxing?: documenting the public statements of gov officials is not soapboxing - get yer terms straight.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    IP socks of banned User:Mariam83 on rampage

    Despite being banned months ago, Mariam83 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) has been on a rampage tonight. Using four different IP addresses (see below), this disgruntled editor made around 70 reverts to various articles. Initially most of the edits were reverting Mariam83's favourite articles back to their preferred versions, however after C.Fred (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semi-protected those articles, Mariam83 started reverting random edits made by those editors who had reverted, reported, or blocked the various socks. The socks used tonight include the following (all four were blocked by different admins for 3 to 31 hours):

    When dealing with Mariam83 socks, I normally just roll my eyes and go crazy on the 'undo' button. However, this time Mariam83 uncharacteristically left the following message [1] on a talk page: "You cant block me, I'm unstoppable. You just try! I will make your wikipedian life a living hell BUDDY! he he he :-)" Unfortunately I fear that Mariam83 is correct about being unstoppable. To date there are approximately 106 suspected socks of this user. (See ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83 for the entire list.) The amount of time editors have spent reverting and blocking these 106 socks is probably quite breathtaking.

    Is there anything we can do to stop or at least slow down this banned editor? --Kralizec! (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the time it took me to research and write the above, Mariam83 has another 29 52 reverts via 68.90.62.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another 21 reverts in sock attack number six from 68.89.189.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This has been a long night ... I think it is time for me to go to bed. --Kralizec! (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is getting quite out of control. The user has been IP-hopping all night, causing a large backup of reverts and protections to unravel. Jmlk17 09:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we know what service provider the user is using? I wonder if it would be appropriate to do a single 5, maybe 10-minute range block across all those IP addresses (just to make the point that no address on that system will work)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes... I've already sent them a request to stop the abuse months ago but received no response. Instead, i only receive her harassing emails frequently under different email accounts. She could even create a gmail account w/ my full name. The easiest way to deal w/ this case is WP:RBI. Range block would not work since the IPs she uses cover different areas in Houston, TX. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you must have really pissed her off FayssalF; she even vandalized your comment here at AN/I [2]. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I stopped her from harming Wikipedia and its users. Threats of violence remain common including threats of 'visiting me in the near future' and 'sending someone to beat me' (threats via email). She just doesn't listen. Again → WP:RBI. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Her persistence is quite apparent. In her latest attack on the project, I count 167 vandalism edits spread across seven different Houston-area IP addresses. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Finding a more proactive solution than WP:RBI for our Mariam83 vandalism issue may not be as insurmountable as I initially thought. After doing research with some of my employer's reverse DNS lookup tools, I was able to determine that even though the seven IP addresses used in her latest attack appeared to be spread across multiple Class-A and B networks, all seven IPs resolve to the ADSL address pool used by Southwestern Bell for Houston, Texas. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    If this becomes a big problem or if for whatever reason things go crazy (e.g., cats and dogs start living together, etc), I went ahead and generated CIDR ranges for an {{anonblock}} should the need arise:

    SockIP ARIN allocation CIDR
    68.91.120.217 68.91.120.0 - 68.91.123.255 68.91.120.0/22 (4 class Cs)
    64.219.76.51 64.219.76.0 - 64.219.79.255 64.219.76.0/22 (4 class Cs)
    68.89.175.189 68.89.174.0 - 68.89.175.255 68.89.174.0/23 (2 class Cs)
    71.156.123.200 71.156.120.0 - 71.156.123.255 71.156.120.0/22 (4 class Cs)
    68.89.189.234 68.89.188.0 - 68.89.191.255 68.89.188.0/22 (4 class Cs)
    68.90.62.202 68.90.62.0 - 68.90.63.255 68.90.62.0/23 (2 class Cs)

    ... for a total of 5 6 blocks which cover a total of 18 20 class Cs (around 4500 5100 ips). It would be a good idea to first find someone with checkuser to make sure there won't be collateral damage. --slakr\ talk / 09:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, I missed one. Updated. --slakr\ talk / 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring over removal of fair use images

    Over the last several days, there's been a slow edit war happening at List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. A discussion has taken place at Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas#Removal_of_fair_use_images_from_this_article. The use of fair use images on lists such as this to depict individual characters has been deprecated. This sort of usage became deprecated subsequent to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which generated considerable debate on first implementation (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use). Other highly similar article types have seen this action of fair use removal (such as discographies and "list of characters in..." type articles). See WP:NFCC on minimal use, and first sentence of WP:NFC#Unacceptable_images for further guidance. This sort of removal has become routine. Nevertheless, and despite my best efforts to educate the people on this particular article, these users are insisting that a consensus must form in order to remove the fair use images from this article, regardless of policy and prior consensus on articles of the same type. I need one or more admins to step in and put a halt to the efforts of these users to continue to force fair use images back onto this article in ignorance of policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This has extended now to List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, where User:Ctjf83 is forcing 25 fair use images onto this character list. Some help please???????????? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A somewhat barren argument, since the Foundation, as I understand it, has said that Fair Use will cease at the end of March 2008, and so from 1st of April readers must expect to see denuded and boring pages; they will therefore go and find a more lively and entertaining encyclopedia. I suspect many editors here will follow, if not lead, this exodus. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where can I read about this plan for the end of March 2008, assuming this isn't an April Fools joke in advance? --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You understand wrong on every count. Firstly, if these were your images and were worth a considerable sum of money, you wouldn't want them decorating articles, userpages and wherever else people want to put them, you would want their use to be as limited as possible. Fox or whoever owns the copyright to these images are no different. If we're not prepared to restrict their use dramatically, the copyright holders will go to court and make the decisions for us. Secondly, we're trying to create a project where the content is as free as possible, users downstream having to justify fair use just because we think it makes the project less boring is grossly inappropriate and unfair.
    I find it exceptionally unfair and completely against our ethos when pages cannot be edited because of fair use edit warring. I'm going to make this abundantly clear, I'm prepared to block anybody that edit wars images into (and out of) pages against the consensus on talk page and such when these pages are unprotected. Nick (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read my comment? Have I misquoted Foundation policy? Is my interpretation of its effect outrageously unreasonable? Where am I disagreeing with you on the principle? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    we have reduced the number of images, so problem solved Ctjf83 talk 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont believe the policy says we can't have any images...why don't u construct to wiki in a more beneficial way...images enhance encyclopedias. Ctjf83 talk 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to use encyclopedic images, and you need to discuss these images in the text of the article. I assume you are doing this... Nick (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont know for sure what you mean by "encyclopedic images", but yes, they are pictures of characters, and are therefore discussed in the text Ctjf83 talk 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be aware; I've just requested the protection to be removed from this article. I give up. The fair use inclusionists have come up a contortionist argument that this article is somehow unique, and it's not a list of characters at all. I'm gobsmacked. But, be aware the fair use inclusionists that don't like our mission are about to push a large number of fair use images onto the article. Good day, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop the sarcasm. I was willing to partake in a productive discussion and achieve consensus, but instead it turned into a brawl. I specifically said that I only wanted a few images for the main characters, at least the main antagonists as I agreed that there were far too many images in the article. My beef was not about the images, but why you removed them under the claim that 'images simply cannot be on lists whatsoever' which you did not justify. Also, just because Wikipedia's mission is to create a free encyclopedia does not mean Fair Use content is not permitted at all. Judging by your userspace, I think your stance on fair use is bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I said, I was willing to discuss it in a productive and civil manner. Now the whole thing has become disruptive which is why I have put in a Request for Comment. .:Alex:. 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just missed the entire point. .:Alex:. 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Foundation policy is not that there cannot be any Fair Use images in any Wikimedia project, but that their use is not allowed if the project does not have a fair use policy. If this were not the case, we wouldn't be enjoying such entertainment on WP:AN/I as the regular BetaCommandBot indef block flamefest, arguments over Fair Use justifications, complaints about Fair Use images appearing on user pages, ad nauseam. A Fair Use picture for identification purposes is permitted by Foundation policy if & only if it includes the proper rationale (that conforms to whatever the rules are this week) -- although it won't appear on Wikipedia's Main Page if the article achieves FA status. The question of how many images is enough/too many should be discussed on the article Talk page. -- llywrch (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry, but the notion that identification alone is sufficient is wrong. Please see WP:NFC#Acceptable_images. This was hammered out over months long debate this year. Fair use law in particular dictates that pure identification alone might not be enough depending on the circumstance; there has to be something transformative about the work. Just because we have a fair use policy doesn't mean we get to use fair use images all over the place. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at your link, & the wording there is what I meant by my words, "permitted by Foundation policy if & only if it includes the proper rationale". You may not like the presence of Fair Use images in Wikipedia, but if a convincing argument can be made for their inclusion in an article, they are permitted. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely, and I never meant to say they are not permitted. However, the means under which they are permitted is where we seem to disagree. You seem to feel that purposes of depiction alone is sufficient. This is clearly not the case. For example, with fair use images of living people we most emphatically do not permit fair use images for depiction only. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is because a free alternative could reasonably be obtained (one can argue about this in the cases of e.g. Ingrid Betancourt, but I'm digressing). Fair use images are permitted though to illustrate the subject of an article where no free alternative can be obtained (mostly works of art), and if the FU image can't commercially harm the rights holder (low resolution and so on). I'm simplifying, but that's about the essential part of it. Fram (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    EpicFlame block

    I just noticed that EpicFlame, a user I help out from time to time, was blocked on 13 November by GlassCobra. The block seems pretty unfair: as far as I can tell, it was for recreating an "attack" userbox in userspace that was only referenced from the user's own page. EpicFlame was a valuable contributor, and was indef blocked without warning. Can anyone shed any light on this? I've asked GlassCobra for details, but did not hear back in his last session of editing. -- Mark Chovain 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That userbox was previously deleted by ST47, as an attack page, and was recreated by EpicFlame with the edit summary "Take that ST47!". The user also had a number of other userboxes in the same vein, such as User:ShooterBoy/UserBoxes/youreadouche, User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/lovestotorture and User:EpicFlame/UserBoxes/douchebag; had moved the first userbox out of his userspace to the templatespace as Template:Youradouche; and had the page User:EpicFlame/Epilepsy2 in his userspace, which consisted of a series of flashing GIF animations and was created with the edit summary "YAY! EPILEPSY! *DROOOL*!".
    All of that probably had something to do with the block too. --bainer (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, Mark, for not getting back to you in a more timely fashion. Thebainer is absolutely correct in his observations here. I had blocked the user for creating these obvious inflammatory userboxes and pages. Even User:Mschel, his adopter and mentor, agreed that the block was just, especially when seeing EpicFlame's verbal lashouts directly after (for example, this), as well as creating a sockpuppet to try to evade his block. Coincidentally, EF just today requested unblocking again, but was denied. I hope I've alleviated all concerns. GlassCobra 09:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Indefinite?" You banned for that? Yikes. I have no sympathy for the adolescent behavior, no use for it, no support for it, but an indefinite block? That's not something we ever do without considerable support. Is there a history of blocks going from 24 hr to a month? Is there use of the community noticeboard? Indefinite is inappropriate, if this is really the reasoning. Adolescence is a disease state, but most people get cured of it on their own, and before "indefinite." Geogre (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, though that shouldn't come as any surprise given my recent posts on this topic over the past weeks. Immediate indefinite bans are judging future contributions on past behaviour. When you have no previous disruption recorded in the block log, you are judging on one incident. Much better to issue a short block and strong warning, and then see if the behaviour changes. Blocks can cause people to change their behaviour, but not unless they get chances to demonstrate changes in behaviour. And expecting them to grovel on their talk page to get unblocked is not really an educational experience. Any real change in behaviour will be learned 'out there' after they've been unblocked. Or not. Indefinite banning too soon is likely to lead to the creation of sockpuppets or other forms of block evasion, especially if they are an inexperienced user. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair, your hypotheticals are a bit flawed; how an inexperienced user would react to such a block is irrelevant when discussing the indefinite block (not ban) of a user that clearly knows how to function in a wiki and decided to use that knowledge to be inflammatory. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't be a dick. Or, rather, one can hardly be faulted for thinking such crude humor is the norm on Wikipedia, given the many examples that one can find. Deleting it as a personal attack was inappropriate in any case, as there was nothing personal about it (still may be a valid CSD-T1, but some deletion reasons carry with them an accusation against the author of the page, and we need to be careful _not_ to make those accusations when they're not valid). A block is warranted, but an indefinite ban is way out of proportion.—Random832 14:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I noticed my name come up here, and would like to explain my position. I was very much against the original block of EpicFlame, and thought it was unfair. I still hold to that position, but do not think he should be unblocked as his behavior after the block deserved an indef. --Mark (Mschel) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually EpicFlame is a sock of Indefinitely banned vandal we all know as W00t, who is a troll from "Encyclopedia Dramatica" and he also has many other accounts on Wikipedia..I believe the indefinite block was justified....--Cometstyles 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? How did you find that out, Cometstyles? GlassCobra 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He was caught on IRC for attacking the #wikipedia channel with dronebots..and since then he was put on our blacklist on wikipedia...--Cometstyles 15:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cometstyles, thanks for replying. EpicFlame has just added another unblock request on his talk page; would you (or anyone else, really) mind going and declining? GlassCobra 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cometstyles: Okay, that would be good justification for an indef block, but I still disagree with the original blocking rational. Anyway, that fact will keep him blocked, which of course is a good thing. Thanks for finding that out. --Mark (Mschel) 23:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I remember exchanging words with GlassCobra about this block, previously; see here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    EpicFlame/w00t is a chronic troll and botnet-operating flooder in #wikipedia; his childish behavior on-wiki as well only underscored that he's not here to contribute to our project constructively. --krimpet⟲ 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of what some say, I think it is a good block. 1 != 2 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quackwatch talk page

    The problem brought up in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#Quackwatch continues. The article is fully protected because of this disputed information and the arguments are basically, as Adam Cuerden put it,

    "Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
    "Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"
    "Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
    "Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"
    "Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
    "ARRRGH!"

    The arguments began 27 November 2007. Over 400 edits to the talk page later and we're making little or no progress. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon me for replying here, but would this be better considered by article request for comments? —Whig (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Adam Cuerden, my concern is that the discussions are just going in circles. We've already had a large number of outside editors give their perspective after two requests for outside opinions. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? A great many publications are not peer-reviewed, many of which are respected & reliable sources. It's insisting statements about a presumable negative condition, for example "Seattle is a city in Washington state of the United States, and not a neighborhood of Tel Aviv." I'd share a real example of this from Spy magazine many years ago, but I suspect it would be redacted due to WP:BLP. -- llywrch (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like trying to prove to certain people that the moon is not made of green cheese. Graham87 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget the crackers, Gromit. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Must be a misunderstanding. but your summary isn't an accurate depiction of the conversation at Talk:Quackwatch. I'm sorry you see it that way. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In your edit summary, you said, "you've misrepresented the opposing POV". Misrepresentation is a serious accusation. Please back it up with diffs or remove it. Please indicate which editor you feel is misrepresenting something. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if my previous comment offends anyone. I don't see any reason to remove it. What Adam and you have effectively done with the above summary is say those with the opposing POV have said nothing more than "Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!" Do you feel that is a fair representation? --Anthon01 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't that it offends, but that it's pretty inappropriate per WP:TALK to make such personal accusations here, much less in an edit summary. However, as I noted on your talk page, as a new editor, you may not be familiar with the use of "misrepresentation" in WP:TALK.
    I quoted Adam because I thought it was close enough to what is going on. I also clarified my own point of view with my initial comment, and my reply above to Whig. I also added 16 diffs to your talk page of your own comments on Talk:Quackwatch to indicate exactly what I mean.
    I also preferred Adam's summary because it did not list any specific editor nor any specific section of the discussion. It expressed his frustration, and my own: that no matter what is done, the responses are changing little if at all. --Ronz (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Anthon01. This depiction of events above is inaccurate in that it misrepresents one side as being blindly stubborn without any policy to back up their position. This could not be further from the truth. Please consider revising to actually reflect both sides position or simple remove this from AN/I as it may be an inappropriate forum for such a grievance. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of complaining, follow TALK and CIVIL to help progress the discussion along. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the language properly represents the discussion. —Whig (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of complaining, how about helping to progress the discussion along? --Ronz (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make an RFC/Article. That should help. This doesn't seem to be the place for content disputes. —Whig (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the Stuck tag. Apologies if it's inappropriate to do so. I've already disputed the need for further RfCs, though I've written one up myself. The problem is that we're stuck. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Rfa

    See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2

    I know that this is already here on the noticeboard, but I feel that Kurt is harassing any user that decides to nominate himself/herself for Adminship. If you look carefully at the current Rfa's you will see what I am talking about. I see only one other place that he has currently voted and that is also an oppose. It seems as if he is only voting on Rfa's that are self-nom and they are always an oppose. Isn't that harassment? Dustihowe (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep (as its my RFA, I do consider it to be harrasement). Davnel03 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx4) No its how democracy works. You stand for a position and people take pot shots at the candidate. There has already been an RFC and lots of drama on this already. Kurt is entitled to express his view and the 'crats who assess the outcome are free to weight his comments accordingly. It all evens out in the end. Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this is healthy given that quite a few people seem to be upset or hurt by his comments - it's having this effect on quite a lot of users now and regardless whether or not you personally believe it's a problem, it has to be considered one when this number of people consider it disruptive. Kurt knows some people consider it disruptive, yet he has carried on regardless - to me is increasingly looking like disruption of the RfA process. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view it is disruption, in the RFA nomination stuff there is nothing that says you cannot nominate yourself. Davnel03 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing that says you can't nominate yourself the first day you're registered. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to oppose you for that reason. Epthorn (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with Ryan. It's disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. I'd support an RFA ban for Kmweber, or at the minimum, an injunction against opposing on grounds of "self nom". ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup; the correct place to protest is certainly not in the individual noms of other users. Surely there's a precedent for, say, an inclusionist who opposed every single AfD on the same principles? Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, his opposes should be removed. Something needs to be done to stop his opposes, that seem to spiralling onto all of the "self-nom"'s FAC. Has he shown any sign of backing down and communicating with other users? Davnel03 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a vote: I seriously doubt that his one vote has swung a single RfA, because bureaucrats can weight it as they see fir when closing. Regardless, it's still a silly and ineffective way to protest. He's said that he's not backing down, but seeing as the whole point is to draw attention he seems willing to at least discuss the issue. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, RFA is not a battleground for protest. You've just effectively shown that he is using this as his personal battleground. WP:NOT, WP:POINT. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This horse and every other animal on the farm have already been beaten to death. The bottom line is that the community accepts and supports Kurt Weber's right to oppose requests for adminship, despite how specious his reasoning may seem at face value. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    O RLY? Can you show me this consensus? Because it appears right now that there are a good number of people who disagree with it. Consensus can change, don't forget. And please show me where he has the right to oppose against a certain class indiscriminately?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    YA RLY. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber, which got comments from a far broader range of people than this pile-on here. --155.98.230.202 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx3)Joy. However, consensus is that these comments are not trolling and should not be removed. I hold no animosity to Kurt for his view point (and even have defended him in the past). But twice in one day we see his RfA comments at ANI (once by me, of course) ? Either the community accepts it's all okay, and everyone complaining about him is wrong, or Kurt accepts that his actions could be seen to be disruptive, as per Ryan. Let's also not forget that Kurt is also a very valued contributor across the project. Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This and this are germane, as are several crats asserting that his opinions are OK even though little stock is held in them. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't find them that disruptive, but the disruption comes from the fact that a lot of other users do. If self noms were discouraged, I would fully support Kurt, but they are welcomed at RfA. Given this is not going to stop, or people are not going to stop being hurt by it, I would endorse an RfA ban at this point. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (double edit conflict): A closed mind is not how we do things here. It's never acceptable to disrupt wikipedia for a point. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So we are willing to "disenfranchise" a user who opposes candidates based upon their self-nom, and whose !vote can be "discounted" by a bureaucrat after close, but in the case of my failed RfA, trolling, disruption, mayhem, and sabotage by the sockpuppets of two banned users was allowed to occur and continue, with no consideration at all on the part of the closing bureaucrat? There's something seriously wrong here. - Crockspot (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) Rude? Yes, but that is it. It is a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose someone for admin-ship. I would think the tone of the message could be altered, but you cannot stop someone from expressing a legitimate concern. IMO, however, blanket policies such as Kurt's are ill-advised as he does not appear to even consider the individual user, but again that is his perogative, even if not too many others appreciate it. But everyone judges one's character differently, and this appears to be how he is comfortable making that judgment. More power to him.--12 Noon 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope your statement "more power to him" is idiomatic, and you don't actually support giving more power to people who vote on RfA candidates ostensibly without looking at their contribs. - Chardish (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    More power to express your opinion to him. If he failed Kurt's litmus test, then there is not much point in digging deeper. Like I said, blanket policies are not my preference, but who is to prohibit individualism? Not me. --12 Noon 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kurt's behavior is very disruptive. To be wary of users who self-nominate is acceptable, but to copy and paste the same vote on every self-nomination is disruptive to the RfA process, which is supposed to individually evaluate the merits of candidates. - Chardish (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Each time that comment comes up, more of the community expresses the opinion that he is being disruptive. I have not reviewed all of his RfA remarks, but in what I have reviewed, I have yet to find an oppose that was based on any apparent review of the candidate. Since RfA is supposed to be a consensus discussion, making a blanket statement without any knowledge of the candidate does appear to be disruptive in intent; it strongly appears to be nothing more than a WP:POINT. I agree that 'crats may well be overlooking his !vote, but I'm not convinced that resolves the actual problem here. Shell babelfish 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)It seems to me that Kurt's contributions to RfA are in clear violation of WP:POINT, therefore I am suprised that they are allowed to continue. They clearly are disruptive, otherwise no-one would complain. TheIslander 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It's a disruptive violation of WP:POINT. If he has a problem with policy, he should take it up on the policy page. Rklawton (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:UNBLUEDPOINT is simple. Twice in one day Kurt's comments have been bought to ANI. Their validity is not the issue. The fact we've had two threads inside 12 hours is prima facie evidence that it's causing disruption. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I said this at the WP:RFARB, which is permalinked from the RfC, and I'll repeat it here. RfA has always been far more of a voting process than AfD. Banning someone from a voting process like RfA because you disagree with their opinions, or how they are expressing it, is fraught with peril. It is a slippery slope we don't want to go down. I advise those getting upset by the oppositions to examine themselves and consider why they are getting upset. Are they taking the opposes personally? Why can't they see those opposes as nothing to get worked up about? If anything, I'd say that Kurt's opposes are (unintentionally) serving a good purpose: namely bringing out those who misunderstand how RfA works, and who are too sensitive to an oppose vote, and are too easily upset by such things. It is a good test of admin temperament to see how the candidate reacts to a frivolous oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Crockspot took the words out of my mouth, ignore him and the disruption goes away. He has no other effect on RFAs....and if a candidate can't take a oppose vote that is destined to be ignored then they may be in the wrong place. RxS (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Kurt's only comment in the archived debate above (presumably aimed at me) was I'm not going to let you get away with it. No-one gave a fuck about that either, as far as I can see. So fine, let him issue threats, but as usual the big bad admins will just have to take it. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that he is opposing for something that isn't even based in policy, and in fact, we explicitly allow what he is opposing for. If he doesn't like that, then he should try and change RfA policy, not oppose in the way he does. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We explicitly allow you not to use edit summaries - but if you don't, your RfA will be clogged with opposes - this is specious reasoning. Anyone who can't tolerate specious opposes isn't cut out to be an admin. WilyD 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no we don't, see WP:CIVIL for example, we explicitly disallow being uncivil. We allow opposes based on many editing behaviors that are explicitly allowed, focusing mainly on vandal fighting, not creating content, being young, editing a narrow range of topics and so on. There is no WP:POWERHUNGRYRFA. RxS (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need a list of community-approved reasons to state that this reason is bogus. The fact that a common response is that the 'crats will ignore it just underscores that the post is not intended as a constructive comment in the RFA process. I would support a topic ban from RFA until Kurt agrees to contribute to the process constructively. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more - without saying anything in favor of Kurt's tactics - a single short sentence opposition is not nearly the response an administrator should expect to get the first time he or she blocks a persistent vandal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disruption is being done by the drama queens people who get offended by Kmweber's opinions, not by his actual opposes. Friday (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're basically happy with all of Kmwebbers contributions in the last 24 hours? There's been no disruption, incivility or threats that concern you? Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. WP is not a democracy, and Kurt has no 'right' to express his opinion. If he doesn't desire to contribute constructively to the RFA process, it's perfectly reasonable for us to ask him to refrain from contributing at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What the hell is RFA for, if not to express your opinion? Says so right at WP:RFA. Unless you mean, you have no right to express a minority opinion, which is what is going on here. --Kbdank71 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • RFA is for deciding whether particular editors should be granted admin rights. It is not a general forum for expressing you opinion. Constructive comments are those which are intended to help make the best decision about granting admin access. Kurt's comments are not intended to do this - even those who support him making the comments say that his comment should be ignored. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Kurt actually following self-noms around and interfering with their other contributions? Or is he just saying he opposes them in their RfAs? If the latter, then I think calling it "harrassment" is frankly ludicrous. DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Restricting a user from participating at RfA is a serious action, and one that should only be taken by arbcom. I suggest that someone file a case there. - Crockspot (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't quite follow. With the demise of CSNB, this is now the designated forum to discuss topic bans. Restricting someone from RFAs still permits them complete freedom to write articles and contribute in the rest of WP space. Why do you think Arbcom must be involved? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that this has come up here several times qualifies it for arbitration, and the "right" to express one's opinion about candidates who will hold the admin tools is one of the more important, as far as I am concerned. - Crockspot (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguments like "Here's a novel approach: Ignore him" and "Radical idea: don't react to everything you see" are helping no-one, and certainly aren't forwarding this conversation. "The disruption is being done by the drama queens who get offended by Kmweber's opinions" is just plain rude, and an attack in itself. If this had been the first time that this had been brought up, then yes, the above would be valid points to make. However, it's been brought up a number of times, so it clearly affects a number of people. For users to say "just ignore it" is kinda like a slap in the face for those that get upset by it. I think that people are forgetting that RfAs are not supposed to be "let's tear this candidate to shreds if they're not suitable" death-matches. Civility comes into this more than anything. An RfA is supposed to be discussed civilly, so if something upsets someone, there's a problem. It is to be expected that non-suitable candidates will apply through RfA, or else the entire system would be pointless. For this reason, arguments along the lines of "just ignore it" are plain rude. Clearly the community has tried ignoring it, as this has come up in the past, but the community clearly cannot do so if it is coming up repeatedly. Kurt is in clear violation of WP:POINT, and so appropriate actions must be taken. (Before I'm accused of having a slurred view on this matter, I'm actually one of the few that went through a self-nominated RfA without Kurt actually responding. If he had, I personally would have ignored it. Doesn't mean that others should). TheIslander 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the purposes of the RfA process is to gauge how a candidate reacts to stresses within the RfA process. In that respect, Kurt's spurious opposes have resulted in some enlightening reactions, and have thus actually been useful, at least to me. - Crockspot (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A comment for which the right action to ignore it can hardly be called a constructive contribution to the discussion. The goal of RFA is not to goad the candidate to see whether he or she will respond well; if it were, we would find a better and more realistic way to do it than Kurt's comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Almost all supports are for no reason at all. If supporting for absolutely no reason is constructive, opposing for a reason many people consider silly is definitely constructive. WilyD 22:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree it is appropriate to ask supporters to explain their reasoning upon request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • On a more realistic level, why not try asking every supporter who doesn't include a detailed rationale for one and see how long until you're blocked for being disruptive? The standards for supports and opposes on RfA are different, even if they shouldn't be. WilyD 22:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kurt is prefectly entitled to oppose candidates for self-nom'ing, for using userboxes or whatever else strikes his fancy. The people harrassing Kurt about it are the ones being disruptive, not Kurt, who's merely being silly. If you don't want your suitability for adminship evaluated, don't apply. For fuck's sake, it's not a big deal that a silly oppose is applied to a bunch of candidates, and it's transparently not a violation of WP:POINT or WP:HARRASS or any other policy one can dream up. Leave the boy alone and they're be no problem. WilyD 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kurt is not "entitled" to contribute anywhere. There is no "right to self expression" on wikipedia. If Kurt does not wish to contribute constructively at RFA< he should find a different area in which to contribute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's an editor in good standing, so until some action is taken against him (community sanction, Arbcom etc) he has as much right to his opinions as anyone else. So in that sense he actually is entitled...as much as any of us are, and no less then any of us are. RxS (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. That's why we are discussing taking action against him in this thread. In the end, I think it is only a matter of time until some action is taken, as Kurt has not taken the opportunity to moderate his own comments on RFA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I don't know, I think the advice to ignore him is very sound. More folks should consider it. Your assertion that he's in clear violation of WP:POINT is not shared, nor is it a consensus view. I also don't think his opinion amounts to a death match. Not every perceived slight needs immediate action and community censure. RxS (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A significant number of editors appear to agree with me that he should be ignored, and after several discussions here on this topic, there appears to be a lack of consensus on what to do, therefore, my suggestion is to either ignore, or send it to arbcom. Crockspot (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A significant number of editors appear to agree with me that he is disruptive and should be topic banned. Your point? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My point was clear, and you have illustrated it further: There is no consensus. Therefore, either ignore, or file an arbcom. - Crockspot (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...except it's already been before the committee, and their reaction was to trout-whack everybody involved. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it seems the only point of this thread is to harrass Kurt over unpopular opinions, which is not appropriate. Work your way up WP:DR if you have a problem with him, there's transparently no support for community sanctions. WilyD 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, how inappropriate is it to take a persons good faith complaint and refer to it as harrassment? I suggest you rescind that statement. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (too WilyD and copied from above) So you're basically happy with all of Kmwebbers contributions in the last 24 hours? There's been no disruption, incivility or threats that concern you? Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an instance where he goes a bit over the NPA line, but it's not related to his habit of opposing self-noms. One might argue he should retract it or face a short block, although I'm not sure that's particularly worthwhile. WilyD 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The disruption stems from people replying to him, not him voicing his opinion. Perhaps someone should speak to them. John Reaves 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A comment which is best handled by ignoring it can hardly be called a positive contribution. An editor who makes such comments regularly, despite being asked to stop, can only be described as disruptive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please put the straw man down. It's not helpful. The complaints are about RFA opposes, specifically, and there's nothing wrong with him giving his opinion in the appropriate place. If there are other concerns, they're separate concerns. Friday (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedro - you couldn't get support for your previous complaint about Kurt today, some might question just who is being disruptive or harrassing. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks are unacceptable here DuncanHill. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation based solely on the threads here today about Kurt. Is it OK to question Kurt's behaviour yet forbidden to questin Pedro's? Perhaps we could have a list of editors whose behaviour it is permitted to raise questions about? DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aw gee, you found me out. I've only done this to harass Kurt, launched this thread myself, and indeed all the people above voicing concern are just my sockpuppets. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a little more sarcasm would be helpful. John Reaves 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, Apologies for the sarcasm. That's not helpful. Duncan, did you see the "I hold no animosity to Kurt for his view point (and even have defended him in the past). " comment of mine. Did you read the archived thread? I fail to see how I'm disrupting here. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a hell of a lot of difference between "some might question just who is being disruptive or harrassing" and saying that someone actually is being disruptive or harrassing. The first is quite clearly an observation on how certain behaviour could appear to a disinterested observer. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I think this thread needs defusing before we go any further. I've clearly upset the community and made some very poor choices and comments today. Obviously I'm clearly wrong and I apologise. Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Two important questions are raised by this issue:

    1. If you make decisions on every candidate with prejudice based on a single litmus test, and contribute to RfA in no other means, are you disrupting RfA?
    2. If "no," then is every form of litmus test acceptable? It has been argued by some that a self-nom is a "legitimate" reason to oppose. Is it legitimate to oppose based on racial prejudice? Sexism? Ageism? Users with numbers in their username?

    I also think it's worth considering that Kurt's comments would most definitely be considered disruptive if he pasted multiple paragraphs explaining his agenda with every oppose vote, rather than just a sentence. - Chardish (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly some litmus tests are accepted (edit summary usage, for example). Others are not. The real point is that everyone has a deeper responsibility to the project to avoid making repeatedly making posts which lead to this sort of thing, especially when the likely outcome is already known. This doesn't mean that nobody should express controversial or uncommon viewpoints; it does mean that we should do so in productive rather than unproductive ways. WP (and RFA) is a collaborative environment intended to find consensus, not an adversarial system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another point is that Kurt is not the only person to be applying single litmus tests, or to have applied such tests. There have been periods when others have opposed on principles such as "not endorsed by a WikiProject", or even the more common "not enough edits" or "not enough experience" or "too young" or "1FA" (having produced one featured article). Those reasons aroused people's ire as well, but for some reason those who are deeply upset by this sort of thing are making a stand and want to make an example of Kurt. On the other side we have the "civil libertarians" (for want of a better phrase) who recognise that RfA is, at its heart, a liberal process that shouldn't be heavily policed and restricted. I know Wikipedia is not about democracy or freedom of expression or stuff like that, but equally Wikipedia is not a place where only "allowed" opinions can be expressed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 'not endorsed' opposes were equally deserving of a topic ban, since it's an impossible standard to meet. The 1FA meme had some significant following, which is important to remember. I don't believe it's possible to reduce this in a legalistic manner, so that all comments (or all litmus tests) are equally valid. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that it must be a full moon somewhere, & that's the cause of this tempest in a tea cup. (Sorry Guy, I couldn't keep all of that to words of one syllable. Maybe next time.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • STOP THIS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. This proves that there are many who should not have the power tools, not when they believe a bit of criticism is a personal attack and/or harassment. This goes for those admins with the tools already. You lose respect that way. Wikipedia has two black eyes already, and this is adding insult to injury! Now stop it. - Jeeny (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeeny that is an awful comment. Anyway, it is disruptive, because he does it on purpose, I would ask him to stop, and if not, start blocking. Maybe I am just mean. But most importantly, admin is not a position you run for. Well, it is, but it isn't supposed to be. It shouldn't be exclusive. Prodego talk 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if he does it for the purpose of being disruptive, do you? Anyway, the double-speak is another major problem and is not going unnoticed. Don't you see that? This is not a networking site, it is an egalitarian collaboration to compile "the sum of all human knowledge". There are a lot of bright people contributing to this project and can see right through all the double-speak, the hierarchy and the hypocrisy. It's embarrassing. Now stop it. - Jeeny (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is what we make it. If you don't want it to be an encyclopedia, it won't be. The idea is for it to be one though. In that respect, you need to read Wikipedia:About, and you most certainly can't complain if we try to make Wikipedia into that. Prodego talk 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, if there's anything Weber shows us is that some potential admins do have skin too thin for my taste. I am impressed when someone ignores or discusses his rationale, I am thoroughly UNimpressed when people threaten to block him unilaterally or break down over what is a relatively inane criticism (and one that is dwarfed by much more uncivil things that admins have to deal with)Epthorn (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said previously, I definitely can't condone Kurt's personal comments on the admins above, but there is a world of difference between that and his spamming of self-noms which are routinely ignored by the 'crats anyway. BLACKKITE 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RfA should be as free as is possible and reasonable. Ultimately, of course, KW has no 'right' except as we establish, but I don't see these numerous RfCs as establishing consensus. Does anyone really believe somehow things have changed since the last one and editors are ready to decide what people may or may not say at an RfA as grounds for opposing? I don't think so. The disruption here is not entirely of Kurt's making, and I think we should note that in this case the matter would have immediately died had people not kept bringing it up. Epthorn (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's clear from this discussion that a significant number of people find Kurt's edits disruptive. That on its own should be enough to convince Kurt to change his behavior voluntarily. It is true the matter would die if others ignore it, but it would also die if Kurt would adopt a different strategy in his campaign against self nominated RFA candidates, so assigning fault only to those who find the edits disruptive isn't accurate. A certain level of collegiality is necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes a certain level of collegiality is definitely necessary and a plus. But, it's a bit difficult when there is such an age disparity and education levels among the community. The "group" is divided into many mini groups. Also, a personal attack and what is considered disruptive is arbitrary because of those difference, along with cultural differences. Bringing this type of thing to AN/I is childish, unprofessional and disruptive IMO. Whining over a silly opinion is more disruptive than the posting of that opinion. Buck up. - Jeeny (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh here we go again. Clear consensus is that his oppose votes, regardless of his reasoning, are valid. I also feel, like others above, that the attempts to disenfranchise this editor are much more disruptive and hurtful to the RfA process than anything he's done. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinion vs manner of expression

    Many people above seem to be discussing whether Kmweber's points of view on adminship candidates, and whether or not he should be allowed to express them, which is really beside the point. If the arguments expressed by any participant in a request for adminship are irrelevant, or not regarded by the community as significant, or whatever, then bureaucrats can safely disregard them when evaluating the consensus.

    The real issue is the way in which Kmweber expresses his views. Having the freedom to express one's views does not mean that one also has the freedom to be a dick when one does so. Kurt should be able to put forward his opinions, like anyone else, but if he can't do so in a collegial manner then he shouldn't do so at all. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do try to persuade him of this, because the comments he is getting above seem likely to only harden his attitudeDGG (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I think that Kurt has explained his reasoning over and over and over again, and seemingly each time the issue comes before the community ultimately it is decided that there is no consensus that he is violating any policy. Why, then, does this keep coming back to AN/I with roughly the same people on each side? It should be accepted that the community does not endorse the view that he is being disruptive. Imagine how much less disruptive it would be if it didn't keep coming back here? If RfA candidates are hurt or insulted by his comment, even though it is clearly not personal, then that fact on its own should call into question their fitness for the tools. If you want to judge the opinion of the community, start (yet another) RfC. If you want ArbCom's opinion, read the past decision or call for a new one. Hitting AN/I every 12 hours to try to get a different group of respondents is irresponsible. AvruchTalk 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • For emphasis - seriously, why clog up AN/I with this stuff? Is this really the place to debate this perennially contentious issue, when everyone who follows it knows there is no consensus either way and that this is not part of the dispute resolution process? AvruchTalk 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus can change, and I would propose that each time this appears on ANI it is more likely to do so. Regardless of the merit of the edits, the fact that he continues to make them when they cause so much disruption reflects badly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a bit dismayed by the notion that something has to be offensive to be considered disruptive. While I don't find it particularly offensive (though its not my RFA) - its certainly annoying and quite possibly pointless. If he wants to have the rules changed or argue his opinion, the RFA talk page is the correct place to do it. Repeating his opinion on numerous RFAs is not the way to get the RFA process changed nor is it the way to get people to debate his idea. If he doesn't want either of those, then it is disruption. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find this line of reasoning circular. So, what, you propose that opponents of his keep bringing this to AN/I and therefore increase disruption ergo justifying sanction? This is getting worse and worse. Epthorn (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that self-noms are "power-hungry" is assuming bad faith. Assuming bad faith, repeatedly, and focusing on editors themselves rather than one's perceived problem with the system (i.e. that self-noms are allowed), is disruptive, counterproductive, and offensive. - Chardish (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm correct his statement- and I've seen it many, many times- is that he sees a self-nom as indication of being power-hungry. A small point, perhaps, but we should not (and I believe can not) eliminate someone's rationale for opposing like that. RfA should be treated in good faith, but it's not a suicide pact- if he sees an indication of a problem, he should be able to spell that out.Epthorn (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think great care should be taken in the labeling of civilly expressed opinion disruptive, particularly when it comes in a forum where it says "Voice your opinion" at the top. Not censored means more than not taking anatomical diagrams or Muhammad's face - it means that sometimes people have to deal with things they find unpleasant, because this is an environment that accepts the full spectrum of opinion as long as it is expressed civilly. AvruchTalk 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, for goodness sake. The last debate over this topic was like two weeks ago, right? And yet it's back...on the theory that if we flog this issue long enough we might end up with a change of consensus. (Or the theory that if enough people yell about the underlying behavior, that yelling will eventually transform non-disruptive behavior into disruptive behavior because, well, gee, see how disruptive all the yelling is?) Seriously - have we finished the wikipedia, and now have unlimited free time to revisit this issue every couple of weeks? Can we hand out the trophies and have cake, or are some people still working on editing articles? This issue has been beaten to death, and none of the above discussion sheds any new light on it -- it just gives people new opportunity to become angry at each other. No, Kurt's views are not disruptive. No, it's not a violation of WP:Point. Yes, we all think he's wrong, but no, the community isn't willing to silence someone for holding a view we think is wrong. We've hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed this -- at some point we have to throw a slab of corned beef on it and officially declare it hashed...and then move on. Here's an idea -- click here to start. --TheOtherBob 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We might actually be able to build a consensus for chocolate cake with cream cheese frosting. - Crockspot (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we discussed him already once today. And guess what, the overwhelming consensus was that he was doing no wrong. These petty little vendettas do nothing but amuse those who are "critiquing Wikipedia", if you can read through the lines. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    and I doubt very many people care what they think anyway. Personally, I find this entire debate hilarious, if for no other reason than there are other editors who have opposed an RFA nom becuase their nomination was not a self-nom. Ultimately, I agree that the beuracrats will deterimine the validity of an oppose (or support, for that matter) if it is important. Does it make a difference if a candidate passes 100-1 with the only oppose being one of these useless "self-noms suck" votes? Talk about a tempest in a teapot. If anything, the frustration over these types of votes indicates a lack of trust in the beuracrats. Ultimately, if you want to be an admin, you are going to become a target at times. Might as well face that as part of the process of becoming one in the first place. Resolute 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that many Wikipedia editors (possibly including myself - I am not self-aware enough to determine this) will never, ever, change their mind on an issue, ever. And the commonly-used approach around Wikipedia to get the result you desires is to repeat yourself on multiple fora over and over again until everyone gives up and you get their own way. Expect to see another complaint to AN, AN/I, RFC, or somewhere else again, because they will keep bringing this up until they get Kurt banned, and given a few admins are of the same mindset (Kurt Is Evil And Must Be Stopped From Opposing RFAs), no doubt someone will block him sooner or later and make things even worse, because someone won't resist unblocking him, we will have a wheel war, it will go to arbitration, and we will have even more drama. It happense over and over, and it all stems from the fact many Wikipedians are abnormally intense and narrowly focused upon repetitive patterns of action, with an inability to regard other people's feelings that may come across as insensitive, and are ruthlessly singleminded. These characteristics are great for categorising stubs or new page patrolling, but useless when it comes to dealing with real people. Neıl ☎ 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Neil. -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the most intelligent and most insightful things I have ever heard on this forum. 131.111.8.99 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, I agree. But where, oh where do we go from here? We may be doomed. Epthorn (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Close this

    Let's close this so we can continue discussion at the RfC. See below. It is pointless to have two venues for discussing the same issue. - Chardish (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Let it stay open until it either auto-archives, or the discussion is resolved. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a good reason why discussion of this issue in two places serves to anyone's benefit? - Chardish (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was closed, it needs to be closed with an appropriate link. This discussion is going nowhere and will just serve to present a misleading view of the conversation.Epthorn (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we can keep talking about it here too then, although I think it will be like two ships passing in the night.Epthorn (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed this thread twice (the first time before the RfC opened and the second time after the RfC opened, on the mistaken impression that everyone would agree that the RfC was a logical place to continue the discussion). It turns out, as SwatJester has said, that there is opposition to closing this thread. The best thing to do in such circumstances is not to close it. The "see also" link at the top, and this section at the bottom, directs people to the RfC. Give it time, and this thread will eventually auto-archive. I would plead though, for people not to move this whole section to a subpage - that is a method of "managing the noticeboard" that doesn't have universal approval. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case there should be the opposite as well- an indication on the other page that redirects back to here indicating that a previously closed discussion is now open... right?Epthorn (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Split? This topic is now 54kb long. Perhaps instead of the two extremes of closing or leaving it open we simply fork it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rfa and leave an {{unresolved}}? That way we reduce the edit conflicts but maintain the discussion. --slakr\ talk / 10:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine with me, and frankly the situation I worried about hasn't happened since people don't seem to be commenting here anymore anyway; it might more or less be a moot point. Epthorn (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't split to a separate subpage. It messes up the edit history of the thread, splitting it over two pages. I've said before (only a few posts up) that splitting dying threads is less helpful than just letting the thread archive normally, and in some cases is actively unhelpful. The only real discussion still going on is in this "close" section! The only thing splitting does is reduce the size of ANI. A long thread like this doesn't cause any more edit conflicts than normal, particularly when there are subsections. Page splitting should only be done when a long thread looks like it will continue for several days longer. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) I'm going to just leave this alone and hope it passes away then. Epthorn (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC - for your information

    An RfC has been started which relates to two recent threads (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear cut personal attack by User:Kmweber & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Rfa) on this noticeboard, it can be found here - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My closure and redirection to WT:RFA of one of those threads was undone, pointing out a possible conflict of interest. Based on this, I'm now closing it again on the basis that discussion should continue at the new RFC.. Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else starting to get tired of beating this horse? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice is to let the second RfC run. I suspect the results might surprise some people. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I have no intention to try to stop it. Just noting that it seems awfully silly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your closure of the thread was highly unacceptable. It's not ok to use the discussion top/bottom templates to shut down a discussion that is active and ongoing, certainly never ok to do it with one that you have participated and have strong feelings about. I've reopened the thread, which is indeed appropriate for this page because it involves the possibility of a topic ban. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should direct comments to the RFC. Once that is over, it should clarify whether further discussion is needed here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see the point in keeping the above threads open either if an RFC has been opened. Closing the thread here and moving to the RFC for furthur discussion is just another step in moving forward in dispute resolution. — Save_Us_229 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the page protection tags, anyway. That's just plain silly for a non-protected page, not to mention misleading to other editors. Oops. Thanks, Carcharoth! Jeffpw (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff, do you mean this? I think you are in the wrong thread... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SwatJester, I was not closing the thread. I was attempting to redirect discussion away from ANI (there are other matters that need attention here, you know) and towards the second RfC. That is not stifling debate. Do we have to have a pre-discussion before closing the discussion, and then another discussion to decide where to hold the next discussion, and then another discussion to sort out the right order in which to do things? There is a time for ANI and a time for RFC. A time for action and a time for discussion. I won't be restoring the tags, but I hope that the discussion does not fragment over three or four different places. That won't help anyone. Two other people have agreed with me that discussion should continue elsewhere. Could someone add a "see also" note at the top of the other threads, directing people to the RfC? That way the discussion here can keep going as SwatJester wants, but people are at least aware of the other discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added "see also" at the top of the two threads, to enable editors to keep abreast of the discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the RFC is brand new, I'm opposed to any closing/redirecting/archiving/whatever you want to call it, until the RFC has had some reasonable time to develop and attract users of all viewpoints. Many people, such as myself, check AN/I regularly but not RFC. This way we get a broader opinion. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There were at least 4 hours between the initial closing of the second ANI thread and the opening of the RfC, discussion had halted when Carcharoth initially closed it prior to someone (I'm not looking it up cause it doesn't matter) reopened it. There really wasn't much point in reopening that discussion especially since the RfC is probably the best place to be discussing this non-incident (imho) at this juncture since its centralized and won't have confusing discussions spread all over the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me who reopened it. I opposed closing it on grounds that someone uninvolved with the discussion should close it when ready; I now support closing it on grounds that it is superceded by the RFC. Chardish (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to close it (although I've made my own opinions known) if no one objects. Having re-read it this morning, I don't see any consensus emerging there, &, with all due respect to one & all, in its current form the topic has evolved into something that is not relevant to AN/I. -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lonnie Frisbee talk page assistance please

    Resolved

    (reposting in hopes I can get some help.) Benjiboi 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to ask for outside assistance as User:71.238.68.127 has a history of deleting items they don't like and adding in items that myslef and others have seen as POV. I just reverted a deletion of a part of sourced quote then saw that they had posted this lengthy piece on the talk page which frankly I feel should be deleted and possibly reworded if they can remove the personal accusations. In the past they have posted extremely long passages and myself and other editors have worked to remain constructive and address their concerns. I think in this case it might be helpful to have another voice weigh in as I'm a bit frustrated going through the same conversation again and generally being accused of wrong-doing, etc. Benjiboi 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pretty please could someone address this? The content issue doesn't seem to be a problem as the material has been sourced but the civility issues are problematic and this is an ongoing situation on this and other articles. I'm hoping a kind word from an uninvolved editor might be heard by this potentially good editor. Benjiboi 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. Jeffpw was kind enough to address this. Benjiboi 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion campaign by 76.176.167.130

    An editor identifiable only by 76.176.167.130 has been on a campaign to remove material he apparently finds personally offensive or discomfiting from a number of articles. He has deleted entire sections (and removed any citations which might support those sections) dealing with quite legitimate topics regarding the sexual orientation or sobriety of various celebrities, in particular Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant. Although I myself am rampantly opposed to gossip and to the increasingly frequent "outing" of anyone and everyone that seems to be de rigeur in some circles, I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed. Therefore, the wholesale deletion of anything which in some fan's eyes "denigrates" the subject is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated purposes. I have reverted a couple of times, but see an edit war brewing. Is there a means of preventing this activity when the editor, 76.176.167.130, is not a registered editor? Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To answer your questions: When the content within articles regarding living people follows the policy at WP:LIVING -- particulary so that the content in question is properly sourced -- it shouldn't be removed without discussion. Briefly looking at the removals made by the IP, it appears that these sections comply with WP:LIVING -- thus, the correct course of action would be to warn the IP, which someone has already done. Then you go through posting these templates and, if the IP still fails to stop, you request an admin to block them at this very page. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Well, these sections should have citations from reliable sources, which they don't, so strictly speaking s/he is entitled to remove them.
    The issue here is one of discussion. Nobody has told 76 not to do this, as far as I can tell. More jaw-jaw == less war-war. The fact that the editor is an IP complicates discussion but doesn't preclude trying. Some attempt should be made, perhaps via dispute resolution if people don't want to just edit a talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm new enough that I don't know how to tell him to stop if he doesn't have a Username. I did tell him in the subject line of my reverts, but that may not be deemed sufficient. I also thought that there was in fact a fair amount of citation in the articles, though perhaps not enough. Maybe most pertinent here, though: do the answers above still apply in light of the fact that these articles are NOT about living persons? Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can still leave them a message at User talk:76.176.167.130, but (a) if it's been a while since their last edit, there's a chance their IP has changed, and (b) there was a MediaWiki bug that was causing problems with the orange "new messages" bar for anonymous users, I don't know the status on that, so you'll need to keep those both in mind. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The bug was solved, last I heard (and a bug is no reason to not try); and the IP is relatively stable (the same style of edits have been made over the past few days from the same place). As always, try discussion first, even if you think it won't work, and enforcement as a last resort. People are generally clueless, not malicious. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He has already been informed and the sections which were removed appear to be well sourced, such as this. Something should also be said about the focus on content relating to Cary Grant in some way, but I'm not quite sure what. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    S/he hasn't really been informed. S/he's got a single, generic template warning about unhelpful edits. That's not the same thing as a discussion or asking why such edits were made. And then it was escalated to ANI, with no further attempts to discuss or offer help or seek a consensus. This could be a POV warrior, it could be a new user, it could be someone with an agenda, it could be someone hurt by our honesty, it could be someone who doesn't believe us, it could be someone who doesn't want to believe us... and thus we come back to WP:AGF as a good point to start from. And discussion is the best way of ensuring AGF is applied. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "You have removed accurately sourced information in several articles, before doing this again i advice you to give an explanation as to why you are removing whatever it is you are removing, in the article's talk page." was appended to the template. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that was indeed appended to a template. I'm at a loss to know what part of that qualifies as discussion. So far, all I can see is a single, generic template warning with a few words of (poor) English that don't explain the problem appended on the end, followed by the case being brought directly, without further templates or discussion, to ANI. How this meets the spirit of WP:AGF (or WP:BITE, for that matter) is a mystery to me. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Redvers, for your insights into this. I brought it to ANI because I asked on a talk page how to go about addressing such an issue with someone who didn't have a Username. I was advised to come here, so I did. I've now learned a little bit about the process, and I'll try to have a discussion with the person. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't thought anything more than that template and my poor english were needed. The IP hasn't made comments anywhere, (not in his edit summarys, not in talk pages) so i don't think he really knows how Wikipedia works. By the way he's still deleating information. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review — Brrwawall

    Brrwawall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) WP:AIV report is here.

    I've blocked this account for 24 hours. This editor created many articles that have been speedily deleted, and received plenty of warnings about creating unverified articles. Given the extensive deleted edits and recreated articles, and the early returns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung XX, I blocked this account prevent further possible disruption.

    I am not familiar enough with hip hop to know if this is outright hoaxing, just run-of-the-mill spamming, or if it's a legitimate editor that won't source his/her articles or use any sort of talk page...I'd like further input on my block and whether it should be lifted or extended. Thanks, — Scientizzle 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been following the user for a while now, ever since I found false info on hip hop artists, especially on "upcoming" albums. I even did a Google search if the info was accurate but didn't receive anything at all related to the artists. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 01:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case, block endorsed. Not opposed to extention. Maser (Talk!) 06:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with hip hop either, but per the AFD, it seems that many editors agree that this user has been creating hoax articles. I think that the block was perfectly justified. — Wenli (reply here) 04:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats from an anon IP

    This diff shows a user at an anon IP making death threats against Knowledge of Self. Mr Which??? 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, and let KoS's block stand. Prodego talk 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he has already been blocked, so what's the issue? — Wenli (reply here) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue was that I didn't see a block notice on the talk of the anon IP when I visited the page. Sorry about that. Mr Which??? 12:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppet of User:Tweety21

    Resolved
     – Indef blocked by User:Kafziel

    VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Halloween12 (talk · contribs) blanked Tweety21's Talk page. Looks like a sockpuppet. Corvus cornixtalk 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by User:Karmaisking on my talk page.

    Started as a mere content dispute. User apparently is taking this very personally. Not sure if this is the right forum.

    [4] [5] [6] [7] Montco (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They've had two notes on their talk page; in the meantime, looks like both of you are reverting instead of discussing. Will try and check back in on this, later. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Things are calmed down a bit. More eyes/opinions might be good, even if only briefly -- help keep things from getting so personal, maybe. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP socks of User: Diluvien

    Resolved
     – Article semi-protected for five days. Kralizec! (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that indefinitely-blocked user Diluvien is back using sock-puppets to mask his series of arbitrary edits and his abusive, malicious editing style. I noticed that a series of anonymous IPs in the 87.122 range (see my recent edit history) were all making edits to The Birthday Massacre without engaging in debate on the talk page, and sometimes hurling abuse at other editors which matched exactly the style of Diluvien. (Generally accusing other users or their preferred bands of being "baby" or "kiddie," a favorite word of his.) Diluvien was indefinitely blocked, and was known to use anonymous IP sockpuppets shortly after being blocked. I haven't absolutely proven that it's him, but when I engaged in debate with one of these anonymous IPs on the talk page, he didn't deny it.

    This user has a long, checkered history of using sockpuppets, making arbitrary edits, abusing other users, and generally approaching debate with a thickheaded attitude of "I'm right because I say I am, and I say I am because I'm right." In addition, nearly all of his edits are mere quibbles over whether or not a certain band matches a certain genre, deleting content added by other users without ever adding anything, and generally throwing temper tantrums and shrieking about his crusade against labeling things as "goth" if he feels they don't deserve it, which he frames as a holy mission against a looming threat to civilization as we know it. --Halloween jack (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, here [8] is a diff of an anon user in that IP range making a change to a goth subculture related page, and making a grammatical mistake for which Diluvien was notorious--peppering his dialogue with superfluous plurals. [Here is another edit that appears to be him, though the edit is not abusive. Then there's this anonymous user, exhibiting precisely the abusive, arbitrary editing behavior and sockpuppetry for which Diluvien is known, making edits in a similar style (editing goth-related articles with no edit summary or "crap removed" in the summary). Here's another one. And another. And another exhibiting abusive edit behavior. And finally, here is one editing with the comment "kiddie crap removed," which as I said before, is Diluvien's trademark insult. And of course, all of these anonymous IPs are in the 87.122 range I identified earlier as a haven for Diluvien's sockpuppetry. How long is this guy going to be allowed loopholes to evade his indefinite block and continue arbitrary, abusive, unsourced, and unsupported editing? --Halloween jack (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Man, you must be bored. You're reporting insignificances. And you know that there are sources for every shit. In the world wide web you can find sources for every stupid crap. If you add Industrial to TBM, the Wikipedia will lost its credibility. People laugh at Wikipedia. WP needs scientists, no hobby users, which add any crap. This is the problem. Btw: You should check this IP, which is the reason for my kiddie crap edits. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.47.229 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Irishguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) went ahead and semi-protected the article for 24 hours, however given the persistence of the banned editor in question, I went ahead and extended the protection to five days. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    66.41.69.113 blocked

    66.41.69.113 was intially blocked for vandalism. It was later lifted as not being clear vandalism. While under the block and even after it was lifted, the user has posted long personal attacks and legal threats (threatening to report another user to the F.B.I. as well as reporting to Homeland Security) and after numerous warnings he continued. As such, I have given him a 24 hour block. I am posting this for review. Obviously, I think the block should stand but if someone else wants to lift it I will not consider it wheel warring. IrishGuy talk 03:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the block, he has reiterated that he intends to report another user to a governement agency as well as made a new personal attack. IrishGuy talk 04:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what I'm seeing, keep him blocked for a while to have a cooldown period. Useight (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool down blocks never cool anyone down. A block to stop ongoing disruption or fighting could work, if it were a clear case. However, the policy invoked here is WP:NLT. The editor took a very long time to explain himself, so it wasn't really your typical legal threat. The personal attack wasn't a personal attack. It was puerile, and it was a wish for unpleasantness, but I don't see blocking for insult, and Bumm13 is not a delicate flower that has to be protected from such things.
    I support the block, but for repeated NLT violations. I also think that you guys need to be patient. It seems like the fellow is simply mistaking Wikipedia for life. Wikipedia is not real, and it is not life. It is a palimpsest, and so incremental narrowing of focus, gradual moderation of adjectives, triangulating toward moderation, and phenomenologically surrounding the truth are more on the cards than being right or wrong, true of false. Geogre (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's easy for you to say. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shlomo Aviner

    I posted to the BLP noticeboard twice, but nobody responded. A few extreme right/kahanist editors are repeatedly adding information sourced to a Hebrew language attack blog which accuses the subject of sexual crimes, and adding material to the article that makes such insinuations. There are POV problems too, but that is beside the point. My attempts to convince the editors to be reasonable have failed, and one of the editors involved has taken to comparing me to Der Sturmer, here. Can somebody please NPOV the article and lock it. Not that it matters, but these claims are entirely without merit and have never been printed in the press, they are merely far right smears to discredit a man they view as a defector. Lobojo (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed the text (he "became controversial" is way too vague from a website that is admittedly against him, especially with serious WP:BLP concerns) and posted on the talk page, reminding them that the burden is on them to prove the allegation, not on everyone else to prove that hit website is lying. Don't know about the talk comment, so someone else should look into that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a blog, it's a website, and for those who read Hebrew, it has documented information of public statements from Rabbis Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Yaakov Yosef, Yosef Kapach, Avraham Shapira, Nissim Karelitz, Mordechai Eliyahu, Shlomo Fisher and The Jerusalem Beth Din. And I didn't name you explicitly in my comment re Der Sturmer, I drew a comparison to an earlier comparison drawn by Izak with editors who edit in a certain POV way. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it's a website. Still not reliable enough for me. Find some news sources about the matter. If they are just documenting public statements, it shouldn't be that hard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, for starters, [here] is a newspaper article about Aviner's sexual harassment. (It's highly odd that he makes a point of posting such things in a certain other article, but here he persists in insisting that such articles be removed.) Also, Rabbi Dov Lior is quoted on the site. The Rabbinic rulings are here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who don't read Hebrew: there may be sources, but these don't seem very strong:
    • newspaper article: a human interest story about two women with sexual harassment complaints against Aviner and the difficulties they had getting anyone to act on them: הרב שלמה אבינר ניהל במשך שנים קשרים קרובים עם שתי נשים, שהיו בהם לכאורה מעשי הטרדה מינית * מרבית הרבנים אליהם פנו סירבו לעזור להן * כמה מבכירי הרבנים של הצינות הדתית ידעו, אבל שתקו - trans: Rabbi Shlomo Aviner had sexual relations with two women over the course of two years, which as it appears was sexual harrassment * a majority of the rabbis to which they turned refused to help them * some of the religious Zionist rabbis knew, but kept silent.
    • rabbinic rulings: this site's selection of sources may be polemical. Its header is translated "The whole truth about Rabbi Aviner" and does not appear to make an attempt to research both sides of the story. Be that as it may, the sources themselves should be judged on their own merit. However, with one exception (the Jerusalem bet din) these are opinion statements from a number of rabbis - they are not the results of a trial with evidence either in a secular or religious court. As for the Jerusalem Bet Din link, it merely says that Aviner refused to discuss this matter before the bet din (religious court). Though the rabbis whose opinions are listed are called "geonim" by the site (a title of great respect), it should be kept in mind that this is a title used primarily by the Haredi community (a.k.a. Ultra-orthodox) to identify those it esteems and is not necessarily reflective of the opinion of the wider Jewish community (most of which is not Haredi). Egfrank (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BritinDC

    User:BritinDC (contribs) keeps adding a section to Heinrich Müller claiming that he was employed by the CIA, which is as long as the rest of the article. His contribs all read like essays, are all related to the Holocaust, and are highly contentious. Possibly a Holocaust denier. I'm not an experienced editor myself so I'd like someone else to look into this. Difference engine (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No clue. Mentioned that he should go to the talk page first and warned him to stop. Next time, be sure to add a link there, as he might not know where it is. All he has done is try to POV-push that same point across the page since October. If you does it again without discussion, tell me and I'll block him indefinitely. There should be little patience here for POV-pushers who aren't interested in discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What he wrote here about Franz Stangl in the bio of Gitta Sereny completely contradicts the WP article on Stangl. He calls Stangl an Austrian postman, rather than a commandant at Sobibor and Treblinka. That seems to be holocaust denial. His unsourced comments about Gitta Sereny appear to have no basis in fact - he calls her American, but only British subjects can receive a CBE, as she did - and go against WP:BLP, WP:POINT, WP:POV, WP:NPA. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What he placed on that page was copied and pasted from here. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, he's been warned and I'm watching the article. If he edits like that again, I'll block. I'm still going to assume good faith and maybe he's be a decent editor here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The addition [9] to the Heinrich Müller article was also copied and pasted from there. Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    questionable edits...

    I came across an edit that triggered my concern.

    I reverted it, and explained why on the talk page.

    The other contributor reverted it, without explanation -- and a totally empty edit summary.

    I left a note on their talk page.

    I was going to leave a note here, about my concern, because they seemed to have been making dozens of similar edits, without explanation. But they left a note saying they had undid the edit that had originally concerned me.

    It turns out this reassuring note was untrue. They did not undo the edit that concerned me. Rather they have proceeded to make a bunch more similar edits.

    Now maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for these edits. But, if so, it should be stated.

    Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • From a quick scan, it looks as though these are valid edits - fixing redlinks because Farsi (language) doesn't exist, and redirects because Farsi and Farsi language both redirect to the Anglicized Persian language. Your reversion on Mohammed Aman actually re-introduced a redlink, and I have put it back. Note that I have not checked every edit, though.BLACKKITE 09:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. Farsi and Farsi language may both redirect to Persian language now. But I don't regard that as definitive.
      • I don't speak Persian. But I know that the articles on Persian, and the various related languages, use some dubious sources. Pashtun is one of the major languages spoken in Afghanistan. Farsi, or Persian, or some dialect thereof, or related language, is the other major language. Different sources claim one or the other is 'the major language. This is all highly colored by politics.
      • It is all a big mess. All the articles about the languages in this region need a good looking at, to make sure the references are legit, and back up the assertions they are supposed to back up.
      • Yes. [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]. I don't know that this contributor is pushing a nationalist POV. However their unwillingness to respond to civil queries concerns me. Realistically, articles on topics like this are vulnerable to POV pushing by nationalists. Geo Swan (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I did check that, and Farsi has redirected to Persian language for well over a year without any obvious controversy, so I assumed all was well there. You may be correct that there is a deeper problem, though. BLACKKITE 12:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is not what Farsi and Farsi language redirect to. The problem I have is that there are a small number of contributors who want to periodically go through and change all the articles that used Farse so they now "say Persian".
          • If you look at the edit history of Abdullah Mohammad Khan you can see that someone else wanted to change Farsi to Persian back in July.
          • These contributors may be right. Maybe there is some convincing justification to change most instances of Farsi to Persian. But I think they have an obligation to explain themselves. Which this guy isn't doing.
          • Some of these "change Farsi to Persian" enthusiasts have gone so far as to make that change right in the middle of quoted material.
          • This contributor responded to the civil query by saying they undid the edit that triggered the concern -- but not doing so -- and then continuing their campaign. I find that worrying. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to be pedantically accurate, then perhaps those links should be directed to Dari (Persian), since Dari is the name given to the form of the Persian language spoken in Afghanistan. Not entirely sure what the fuss is about here. "Farsi" is simply a slightly pretentious alternative for "Persian" (language). --Folantin (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    {{indef}} tag accidentally restored for unblocked user?

    Resolved
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Just happened to notice that a user has restored the {{indef}} tag on a user page[10]. Looking at the block log it appears that User:Ral315 removed the block and restored the previous state of the page. Another user came along and restored the blocked version of the page (perhaps they hadn't checked the block log). Don't know much about this sort of thing, but perhaps someone who knows could check this out? Egfrank (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at it, we should probably assume good faith that User:The undertow didn't know that the account was unblocked. I believe he was the one who originally protected the page after the incident of the Main Page deletion. — Save_Us_229 11:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Knee-Jerk reaction to a user that deleted what should not have been deleted. If TRE is back in good faith, then let me stand corrected and my apologies are for all to see. the_undertow talk 12:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :::I don't know what is going on below this comment, but I'll say this. While Undertow's revert was probably a good faith revert, he/she should note that there is no possible way that User:Ral315 could have removed the tag off of his user page if he was still blocked, as blocked users can only edit their talk pages. So the fact that Ral made an edit to his/her user page, tells us all that s/he isn't blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit was made to User:The Random Editor, not User:Ral315. --Onorem♠Dil 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that. ;) - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a seperate issue

    There appears to be a separate issue regarding The undertow's behavior though, as he deleted his talk page User talk:The undertow and protected it despite it falling under any criteria. He doesn't appear to be leaving the project, so I'm not sure what to think. Alison unprotected his talk page, but the old history remains deleted. I would call for this to be undeleted. — Save_Us_229 11:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh, he protected it again. If he's editing, he can't have a protected talk page so I've unprotected it. I've asked him to also undelete his talk page, we wouldn't accept this if he was a non-admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly deleting his talk page and wheel warring a protection of his talk page is highly unbecoming of administrator behavior, at all. — Save_Us_229 11:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also this as well. Daniel 11:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall Jeffery O. Gustafson protected his talk page for a good long while, and got ArbCommed for it (among other reasons). Sean William @ 11:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, I think The undertow is having a bit of a rough time right now. Just a little perspective on all this - Alison ❤ 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My talk page has been deleted for a week. Show me where I cannot delete my talk page? It is only since the recreation that this has become a problem. Throw some acronyms at me, so I at least have a path to follow. This username will be re-guided to usurpation in 12 hours, so I would value the input of those who feel that I have abused my tools. the_undertow talk 12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:PROTECT, any user can request protection of their userpace, but there talk page should be left unprotected except in serious circumstances or when someone excercises their right to vanish - this was not the case here. If this came up at WP:RFPP it would be rejected without question, so why as an admin do you have a special right to protect it yourself when others wouldn't be able to? Secondally, if a user requested deletion of their talk page, but carried on editing, it would be restored straight away - hence why I suggest you do that now. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that but you wheel warred the inappropriate protection. — Save_Us_229 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USERPAGE mentions user talk deletions. Were there legal threats involved? Nonpublic personal information on your user talk? SQLQuery me! 12:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My given Christian name was here mentioned. Is that not enough? the_undertow talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you put your SSN (or at least something you claim to be) up on AN? I can't say I really buy that you're concerned for your privacy. SQLQuery me! 13:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as Pedro feels that he has been outed, which has been discussed ad naseum, then I still don't feel comfortable, regardless of my position. My SSN is my own, and under U.S. law, I am free to disperse such information. I didn't do it to prove a point - I did it because if someone feels that I have violated their privacy, then I only have two options: protect my own, or offer myself as a gesture of good faith. If you feel like questioning my motives for deleting my user talk, then I will have to assert that my privacy was an issue, but it is no longer. Things simply change. I have changed my mind and regardless of my defenses, I cannot assure Pedro that he is now 'safe,' so why should I be? Sometimes, even amongst those you always disagree with, something strikes a chord. It's not for you SQL - it's for me. It's how I sleep. the_undertow talk 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What privacy reasons are there with your user talk? If there's a bad revision, delete said revision, if not then restore it. As I said before - if this was a non admin, they would never have got an admin to delete their talk page, so administrators shouldn't get that privilege either. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    urging me to delete said revision while telling me i have no right is elliptical. the_undertow talk 13:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Delete one revision, and restore the rest if there's a privacy concern, not the whole thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip, if it's the usurp request you put in last week, you're changing your name to your Christian given name, so I seriously doubt that's the issue. The history should be restored. Lara_LoveTalk 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shall we close this and move on? Pedro :  Chat  16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if he continues to have his talk page deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too true, everybody whether admin or otherwise should be treated the same, why should he be allowed to delete his talk page when the rest of us can't. I'm damn sure if I asked for my talk page to be deleted I'd be told "No Way Jose". So if the rules apply equally to all, then I'm sure the_undertow talk will face sanctions if he doesn't restore his talk page pronto. Won't he? RMHED (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He might, but his talk page has been unprotected and he has no desire to protect it ever again. It's over, as far as I am concerned. However, any further discussion is welcome. In fact, you can place it on my talk page! the_undertow talk 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility, Personal Attacks by Agha Nader

    I am reporting a pattern of POV editing, uncivil behavior and personal attacks by User:Agha_Nader in at least two article discussion pages ‘’300’’ and Talk:Persian Gulf. While he has been uncivil to many others (evidenced by the DiffTimes below), he has also pointedly accused me of racism (1 [User_talk:Agha_Nader#Accusation_of_racism 2]) as well as filing a stale and petty Wikiquette alert based on an ‘’unfiled’’ RfC sitting as a subpage for the user ‘’for over 6 months’’.

    I have held off on this complaint as long as I can, after having sought to resolve the matter with the user himself and using an intermediary to resolve the problem (User:FayssalF, an admin) without substantive result (the subpage was deleted but not the wikiquette complaint that was copied word for word from the page), though I believe that FayssalF did make solid attempts to resolve the situation. Granted, I ‘’insisted’’ it be removed within 12 hours, so as to decrease the damage an active accusation of racism can have on an editor. Two days later, Agha Nader has chosen to take no action. These personal attacks on myself, coupled with the incivility and personal attacks leveled at other editors, and general POV-pushing need addressing, and he isn’t going to cease without someone with a larger toolbox taking a hand in matters. As another editor put it in the ‘’300’’ discussion: "…either everyone who disagrees with Nader is a racist, or he's artificially trying to prolong a dead conversation".

    Incivility/Personal Attacks:
    in ‘’300’’ (arguing that ‘Iranian’ needs to replace Persian in the Lead, rewriting history):

    in Persian Gulf (accusing others of POV-editing, sock-puppetry and single-purpose accounts):

    I have issued Agha Nader a warning regarding his conduct (diff). Please update this section if the behavior continues, or alert me on my talk page. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded to Arcayne's ill-considered accusation here [11]. He accuses me of "POV-pushing" and nationalism. Are these not serious accusations? I have never pushed any POV. I am a very neutral editor. I edit many Iran (Persian) related articles. A glance at my talk page or contributions will show the keen observer the backlash I get from my neutrality--from Iranian editors to Arcayne. Also, you should take a look at [12], where Arcayne tried to intimidate me. Finally, I think you should take a look at the wikiquette alert, for it sheds light on Arcayne's behavior [13].--Agha Nader (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, i would dare say the wikiquette alert it sheds light on edits from over six months ago, and revealed, in context, Agha Nader's uncivil behavior and pattern of personal attacks back then as well. Neutrality is not one of the hallmarks of this user, as judged from strong POV edits to articles where Iran-based issues come into play.
    And what he terms as "intimidation" was my attempt to involve an admin to encourage him to withdraw his accusation of racism before it led to this very report. I gave him every opportunity to withdraw his accusation, and he responded by highlighting the 'examples' of my racism and subsequently blanked my responses to them. I am certainly not the only editor who has been subjected to Agha Nader's incivility. I am just the one filing most recently. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, looks like an admin already weighed in, well before Agha Nader responded. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had explicitely suggested the following:
    • Agha Nader: To delete subpages which refer to Arcayne and to withdraw the Wikiquette alert as a sign of assuming good faith. Again, Agha, please withdraw it. I had asked you to do it but you asked me the same question again. It is a "yes, please. Have the courtesy to withraw it."
    • Arcayne: To not set ultimatums as they produce negative effects in any mediation or conflict resolution process.
    • To both contributors... Could you please give some distance to each other if you believe it is hard for you to remain calm when you are dealing with each other?
    Can we achieve that? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I am happy to oblige. I only set a time limit bc accusations of racism can snowball if left unattended. His singular lack of response led to this filing. As for editing elsewhere, so long as he is polite with myself and other users, the two points of contact we have should go smoothly with me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully and regretfully, I can state that I fully support this action by user User:Arcayne and agree with his observations of user User:Agha Nader. I have been the target of Agha Nader's suggestion that I am involved in sock-puppetry and have been labeled as a single-purpose account also included in his discussion page. I would ask and hope that these accusations are retracted by Agha Nader as they are baseless and damaging to my reputation. I would like to thank the involved administrators here and sincerely hope that as a result of this oversight, many positives are experienced by all involved. With appreciation ObserverToSee (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not accuse Observer of being a SPA, I said it. He is a SPA, because he has only edited the Persian Gulf. I do not see how that is an accusation. I have retracted my wikiquette complaint. I do this in deferring to the wisdom of Fayssal.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Severe incivility from User:IrishLass0128

    (Moved to WP:WQA)

    Regardless of the merits or otherwise of each side (and I think that severe incivility is putting it rather strongly - If I were asked to put a label on it, then "testy", "grumpy" or "grouchy" would be as far as I would go!), it ought to have been clear from the start that no admin actions were required here. As such, WP:WQA would have been a better place to take this. Mayalld (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think that board was active anymore. I've moved this there (but, regardless, it wasn't and isn't clear that IrishLass0128's actions (esp. if part of a long-term pattern) aren't blockable) —Random832 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom behaviour

    [Moved to Jimbo's talk page]

    Adam, in as much as the Arbcom is acting in its official capacity, administrators have no jurisdiction over it - it's acting in loco Jimbo. You need to take your complaints to the Arbcom, or failing that to Jimbo. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The project leader has veto powers. If you have a convincing case, you may consider posting on his talk page, or if it contains nonpublic information, email. Regards, Mercury 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Will do. Adam Cuerden talk 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam, I have not researched all of these cases but I can respond to two of Kirill's examples. You are an extensive editor of Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with more than 100 edits to the article or talk page. Under those conditions, it is a misuse of your adminship to decide to protect, or even semi-protect the article. When you are involved in an editing dispute as an editor, you must use WP:RFPP or some other means to contact an uninvolved admin for an unbiased assessment. Sm565 (talk · contribs) was also an extensive editor of Homeopathy. As such, you are forbidden to block him, even for a clear-cut case of 3RR violation, but instead you must file a report at WP:AN3 like any other editor. Basically, it boils down to this: When you are acting like an editor, you may not intervene as an admin. I'm afraid I agree with the sentiment of the 5 arbitrators who have so far voted to desysop you that RFA made a mistake in your case and you are not (yet) ready for the admin toolbox. Thatcher131 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this...

    ...but someone's threatening suicide if his page is deleted. I have no idea what to do. --Dawn bard (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the right place to report. I have blocked the IP address for making threats. I have also notified the WFM Office so they can take whatever further steps may be needed. - Jehochman Talk 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Always a hazy, uncomfortable issue. WP:SUICIDE does a good job of explaining matters, IMO. — xDanielx T/C\R 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider this particular one as far below the horizon for action. DGG (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is time served included in block time?

    Privatemusings [14] was prohibited from editing for 90 days Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision due to an arbitration decision. Does the 90 days start from the time of the decision (December 2) or from the time his block for misbehavior started (November 18th)? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Better asked of ArbComm at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. My sense from the DBWW case is that it starts from the case decision. GRBerry 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like wikilaw (not accusing people of wikilawyering). The nice way would for everyone to agree to work together. The concept of credit for time served is followed in many countries. The most important point is not the number of days but an agreement to all work together. Good luck, Privatemusing. What ever your accused of (I don't know what it is), just look to a positive future. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, remedies are considered "in effect" from the time to the case is closed. Might not hurt to ask, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marginal notability BLP deletions

    Hello, I'm crossposting this as suggested by User:Mercury. In the wake of the BLP marginal notability courtesy deletion of Angela Beesley, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley, a discussion on this practice is underway at:

    Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Marginal notability deletions. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ApotheCure, now with legal threat fun!

    Resolved

    We are going to file a lawsuit against the admin for our company. The statements made on this are 100% completely false. Either it is removed today, or we will file suit.

    Call me: [phone # redacted].—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.28.194 (talk • contribs) Retracted.

    My first real legal threat! I've blocked this IP for 24 hours...See the edit history of ApothéCure Inc. for what was going on. I believe my well-cited sources will stand up just fine. Any advice here? — Scientizzle 18:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my block message. — Scientizzle 18:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One comment, one question: They are going to file a lawsuit against the admin for their company? Ooook. Second, since you are involved, is your block appropriate? Just want clarification so there is no gray area on policy concernsspryde | talk 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In retrospect, I probably should not have blocked. I'll gladly support any other admin's unblock. — Scientizzle 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I am all for the block. Clear threat and such. I don't fault you for the block either. I just wanted to make you aware of the possible COI there, that is all. Cheers! spryde | talk 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone makes a legal threat to you, that does not make you to "involved" to give a block. Good block. 1 != 2 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More info: there is something of an unblock request (though without the template) at User talk:76.197.28.194. I have replied and would welcome any other input on that page. — Scientizzle 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like you covered all the bases. The ball's in their court. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal threat retracted. I'll now unblock. Thanks all, — Scientizzle 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK is late

    DYK next update page was supposed to be moved to the main page more than 2 hours ago. Any admin can help? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did I do it right? =P - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it matter if DYK get out at a certain time? To we need a post here every other day telling us about it? John Reaves 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plenty of admins who do not normally frequent DYK are more than willing to lend a hand when the update is overdue. For those of us willing to help, how else are we going to find out about it unless someone makes a post to AN or AN/I? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about some sort of template on your user or talk page which says how long since DYK was updated ? Nick (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I was an admin, I'd use the list of available admins on the DYK page, and try to find one currently making edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RAmesbury offering to pay (or being offered to pay) to edit tendentiously

    A long, well-written but tendentious series of passages was added to History of special relativity by User:RAmesbury. The writing was distinctive enough that a Google search for it turned up only one alternative source - Anti-relativity.com. The source website alone causes prima facie concern, but once you read the post itself, it's even more concerning (emphases mine):

    The name of the poster is "Raleigh Amesbury," rather similar to this user's name (RAmesbury). Below the portion of the post that I quoted above is the material that was added to the History of special relativity article. Now, RAmesbury has been temporarily blocked for gross incivility, but I think there is enough evidence here to be concerned about a far larger disruption of the project. Antelan talk 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like an upper limit on the disruption would be the eight articles s/he mentions. They could always be protected if they get out of hand. If it's a case where he legitimately wants to add reliably sourced material but has too much of a hot head to survive in this community, I vote to see what his students comes up with. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any reliable sources, or acceptable sources per WP:ARB/PS, for "anti-relativity", which is essentially a rather non-notable pseudoscience. It's highly unlikely that any legitimate physics student would accept such an offer. RAmesbury himself, however, is doing quite a bit of damage: most of his science article edits have been reverted, but he's changing a number of 'clairvoyance' articles to have a definite positive bias, and is admitting to doing so on talk pages. We might also want to look into whether this editor is related to KraMuc. --Philosophus T 22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    his claim to be unable to deal with wiki markup seems not be borne out by the technically competent edits and correct formatting of his references--although almost all of them are, not surprisingly, totally unreliable sourcesDGG (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It seems to me that his talk page "request" was more of an appeal for meatpuppets to sway consensus toward his pseudo-science than for actual help with entering reliably sourced info into articles. Mr Which??? 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *boogle* Time to keep an eye out for people complaining about pro-quantum physics bias? -- llywrch (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    someone with more knowledge of the topic might want to look over User:RAmesbury's recently created Criticisms of Einstein's Theory of Relativity & also look at whether this this is heading further into disruptive pov pushing. must say the refs don't look too good...  ⇒ bsnowball  09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The first look gives me the idea that the article is OK. It should be in perspective though. It is basicly a list of people who have disagreed with either special relativity or general relativity (which are similar on a very fundamental level, but really different in their implications and workings). Most quotes are from when relativity was still very young. Teslas commentry was from a time Tesla himself had gone a little wonky (another quote from this period of his life, about his "death ray": "[The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks." Later theories are really fringe theories. Concluding, this article is currently not about criticism of Special Relativity and General Relativity, it is a list of people who criticisesd general and special relativity. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's ok? it uses wikipedia for references and a few of the other sites leap out as crank sites - I'll see if the physics wiki project will jump it for clean-up work. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That article Criticisms of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is just a copy of his essay on the anti-relativty forum. I don't think that essays belong in an enclopedia.
    He just re-inserted the essay on the 4 pages [15], [16], [17], [18]. He also removed the block notification on his talk page and the notification of the creation of this section. This looks like an open invitation to get permanently blocked.
    I will remove his message from the four articles again. DVdm (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that criticism on relativity is notable. I also think there could be some room for notable opposers relativity. This copy-and-paste list though is not really the way to go. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have inserted a delete tag to the new article. DVdm (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Twsx

    User has continually edit warred on pages Amon Amarth, Dissection and possibly others. User has been warned a few times already (see Amon Amarth's talk page) and is breaking WP:CON and seems to have an agenda with these pages. I know there's a also a rule somewhere that states people should not be overprotective of pages. Any help would be appreciated thank you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I realize it's difficult to find evidence for that, it doesn't change the fact the user keeps edit warring on those pages. Also, I would like to ask for a more non-biased/ impartial view then Scarian's. No offense, but User:Scarian and I are not on the best of terms and we have had many disagreements in the past, and he always seems to be somewhat following my edits ready to pounce on any edit of mine he deems "bad". Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologise if anything I have written on this page seems impartial but it appears to me as though I have written nothing that could be construed as impartial. In actual reality I've been strictly neutral and even attempted to correct your errors. ScarianTalk 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The root issue here is a disagreement over the formatting of Infoboxes. As this is currently under some heavy discussion where no consensus has been reached, it's a bit hard to say that either side is breaching WP:CON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since there is no consensus at the moment it means that no one is breaking WP:CON. ScarianTalk 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, precisely my point. ArakunemTalk 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Look, I get what you are saying, but the user is still edit warring! I was blocked before for doing the same thing on the same issue!!! Scarian knows this. I was doing the same thing on the Iron Maiden page and I got blocked for edit warring. Well, Twsx is doing the same thing, and consensus or not on the genre delimiter issue, the user keeps reverting and showing an agenda for this and that has to be worth something!...otherwise I could start going to pages changing ALL the genre delimiters and reverting everyone and simply say "theres no consensus on the subject, so I won't stop and you can't stop me". Now I want justice! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to mention a few users, including myself, keep having to revert him, as he is the only person making those pages have comma breaks and that is breaking WP:CON, and even if not, see what I said above. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had to respond to this too many times already. To not write things i have already said again and again, I have created a page listing my arguments. Thanks. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 11:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.113.168.136

    This user has been warned for incorrect edits and edit warring. On the page Paradise Lost the user has continually broken WP:CON and WP:POV in making an incorrect edit. The user refuses to even speak about it and just continually misedits the page. I think the user is a small vandal and that something shoul be done about it. A warning will not suffice in this situation, I believe, and I humbly ask for a block as the user has shown no regard for talking about anything but continually edits. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It looks like he is removing some links from the references section that don't, per general consensus, meet WP:RS (e.g. myspace). You need to provide diffs/evidence of consensus if you're saying that he is going against it, btw. ScarianTalk 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not the links I care about!!! That's not what he got warned for! He keeps changing the genres he thinks Pardise Lost is. Therfore, that breaks WP:POV and WP:CON. Also, I'd like someone else to review this, please.Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, there are sources which say Paradise Lost are a doom metal band (Which is what the IP was adding to the infobox). AMG, for example. [19] Funeral 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First AMG has been shown to be unreliable for genres at times. Second I didnt say they weren't doom. It's already covered and been talked about. Paradise Lost was death/doom and eventually changed to gothic metal. The genre box says death/doom so theres no reason to put doom metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Genres should be general, and not over specific. Trust me: 98.9% of wiki users could not tell the difference between doom / dark / goth / death / whatever metal. Wait a few years for the neologisms to settle, then decide. There's no rush; it doesn't have to be 'right, right now'. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing on OpenEdge Advanced Business Language

    Ninjadude9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than to OpenEdge Advanced Business Language. Persistantly re-adds weasle wording, opinion and addspeak, such as "...to create a unique product. Because of the significant ease of use...". this has continued since s/he origionaly inserted it back in 5 April 2007. Edit summaries and revisions:

    Obvious tendentious editing per WP:DISRUPT, by this editor who continues editing this article in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. This may fall under Disruptive editing where people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. I've tried repeted attempts to communicate the problem in the edit summaries as have other editors (Emergeo), including a warning on the users talk. Please advise.--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, a better aproach, i would add. --Hu12 (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    road rage

    Blocked 68.208.176.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for adding joke entries to the article after a final warning, just checking in here to make sure I'm not considered "involved" due to a history of trying to keep crap out of the article (see [20] - various editors have a history of adding joke entries, these aren't even the worst historically) —Random832 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A new gem just today (not from the same IP) is "* going totally Super Saiyan while driving, causing other cars to explode forcefully to either side. Often associated with long periods of grunting and yelling, followed by a change in hair color and muscle mass." —Random832 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    seems heavly vandalized. I've semi-protected it for a week, to prevent any attempt to subvert the block--Hu12 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking for clear vandalism shouldn't be a conflict, even if you do help monitor the content of the article. Shell babelfish 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries here. Sound Block. Thanks for bringing it here though, to keep your "hands clean" and ensure transparency. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SarekOfVulcan

    User SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be Wikistalking IrishLass. While viewing my watchlist a number of articles popped up in a quick fashion. I originally questioned if SarekOfVulcan was wikistalking me, but it turns out, every single one of his edits is a page last edited by IrishLass. It is disconcerting that a user can stalk someone in such a way using AutoWikiBrowser. It's disconcerting and out right scary. CelticGreen (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have anymore information on this? Like diffs that would justify this accusation? Maybe the articles are all in the same category. John Reaves 22:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just viewed his contributes because a bunch of my watchlist stuff came up but if you go to the contributes IrishLass has contributed to every one of the last 20+ (sorry, exact number not known) articles that he's using AWB to "clean up." I've reverted some of the changes to the articles I had on my watch list but only on my watch list, none of hers. SarekOfVulcan made comments on Village Pump (Policy) during a heated discussion that some of us have had to walk away from. It was shortly after the last comment from IrishLass that his stalking started. As I said on an admins page, this is really creepy. CelticGreen (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some info: since this [21] all but 8 of his edits, out of 30 have been previously edited by IrishLass and he states he's using AWB to find the articles. The last 17 were consecutively edited by him and were previously edited by her. Maybe I don't understand the stalking policy, but this is creepy. CelticGreen (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, Could you please clarify your question/comment? I don't understand. It seems you are saying it's okay for him to stalk someone because they had a difference of opinion that's already been dealt with ad nauseum. (i.e. talked to death to the point I won't try not to even open the page at this point). But that doesn't seem exactly like what you're saying. I'm sorry, I'm just confused by your comment. CelticGreen (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clarify--that was not my meaning--I was only suggesting that the issue on the VP page would perhaps be appropriate for a (separate) discussion here, if others agreed with me. It seems a situation where an out of control user might need stopping. As for the stalking, I was not yet discussing it. Of course stalking is wrong regardless of topic. But most of the edits seem innocuous fixing of typos and removal of obsolete tags on uncontroversial topics. DGG (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying. The issue on VP is definitely inflamed. Many are upset. I'll give you that but I think most involved sort of agreed that none of us would "tattle" on anyone over the feelings that happened. But that is, of course, the decision of those with powers I don't have.
    As to the stalking, while the edits are apparently innocuous, the need for the edits was found using AWB and a users name. SarekOfVulcan was called on the carpet for correcting IrishLass, by IrishLass, and within hours he's editing pages previously edited by her and only pages edited by her. There's no variety. Every page for 17 consecutive edits were edited previously by IrishLass. I don't mean to make a mountain out of a mole hill and I try to avoid reporting things short of vandalism but this kind of creeped me out to see a user editing only pages by a single other user that they previously had no contact with. I have a temper, I piss people off, I would hate for this to happen to me. It's just scary. CelticGreen (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look, and I really can't find any good explanation for the fact that so many of SarekOfVulcan's recent edits are to pages IrishLass had just recently edited. That said, the edits look like perfectly reasonable ordinary cleanup using AWB. Not sure what we should do -- other opinions? Mangojuicetalk 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronic fatigue syndrome

    Users Orangemarlin and Sciencewatcher keep mutulating the article Chronic fatigue syndrome. It was protected for a week, but they resumed their activity the moment the protection expired. For Sciencewatcher, this is not the first time, but now that he has found a pal all efforts to persuade him to stop this have proven futile.

    Orangemarlin is involved in many editwars. It seems his only contribution to Wikipedia at this time. He refuses to discuss content.

    Sciencewatcher has been a disruptive factor on the CFS talkpage since he joined. It is his only activity on Wikipedia. The talkpage is for 3/4 filled with his 'drivel' as another user put it, making it quite impossible for other users to have a normal discussion. He has yet to make his first constructive contribution.

    I kindly request appropriate action to ensure that we can improve and discuss this article without constant hindrance by obstructive elements. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that several editors have now found that discussions on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome tend to go round in circles, and that progress is only achieved by being WP:BOLD at times. That is, unless these edits immediately get reverted by editors who prefer the status quo.

    OrangeMarlin happens to be working on a featured article. I don't call that edit warring; I suggest accusations are withdrawn. Sciencewatcher is fully entitled to participate in discussions, and your characterisations of his comments are not helpful here. In future, consider requesting protection on WP:RFPP without the personal comments. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Still waiting for arguments. Reverts to the status quo is what is prescribed in their absence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a misrepresentation of Sciencewatcher's edits. He clarified on the talkpage what was wrong with the material he edited. Instead of reverting, one ought to have reviewed the new version on its merits and make changes where necessary. JFW | T@lk 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His clarification was refuted, all other users that participated in the discussion spoke in favour of keeping the section after the text was improved and reviewed on its merits, and then he deleted the improved text regardless. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside admin review requested: Strider12 (talk · contribs)

    Hello. I'd like an uninvolved admin to look at Strider12 (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account pursuing a fairly specific agenda related to post-abortion syndrome and one of its leading proponents, David Reardon. I've been working with this editor for about a month and have reached what feels like a brick wall.

    Specific issues from the tendentious-editor checklist include:

    • Edit-warring and frequently going right up to 3 reverts/day despite universal opposition to his edits on the talk page. Typically this is accompanied with the statement that Strider12 is reverting to a "better" version that we may add material to the article, but may not remove anything he has added: [35]
    • Retitling article talk-page threads ([36], [37])
    • Calling edits with which one disagrees "vandalism": [38]
    • Accusing others (who are, per Strider12, engaged in a campaign of "purging") of failing to assume good faith: [39]
    • Responds to requests for constructive engagement by insisting we use his version as a starting point: [40], [41], [42]
    • Repeating the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone: [43]
    • Canvassing potentially like-minded editors to "jump in and help him out" in a "revert war": [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Even after being directed to WP:CANVASS by a friendly editor ([50]), and a more direct warning from me ([51]), Strider12 continues to maintain that the above posts do not violate WP:CANVASS, as he issued only seven "limited invites" ([52]).

    Basically, this is a tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven account editing actively and disruptively with disregard for the consensus-building process. I've tried to be patient, but after several weeks of this I'm exhausted. Personally I think there's more than enough to warrant a topic ban, but obviously I'm involved. I'm just asking an uninvolved admin or three to look over the above, take whatever action they deem appropriate, and watch the articles for a few weeks. It's difficult to give a full impression of the problems here, but hopefully the above diffs start the process. MastCell Talk 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think a topic ban would work? John Reaves 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it would give him a chance to demonstrate that he can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia in other areas. Of course, in this case it may be functionally equivalent to an indefinite block since there appear to be no other on-wiki interests. MastCell Talk 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I forgot to mention that Strider12 views the consensus against his edits as de facto evidence of sockpuppetry: [53]. MastCell Talk 23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban would seem to be warranted, but so would a short block for incivility. DGG (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's excessively lenient. Shape up or ship out, I say. Not everybody has the ability to edit dispasionately and to comply with Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not for everyone. This looks like one of the people for whom Wikipedia is not, as it were. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But a short ban has not even been tried yet--it should have been applied some time ago. if it does not work, then a longer ban or a topic ban would be appropriate. The demonstration that people here in general think the conduct wrong can have an effect. It's not a matter of being lenient, it's of hoping for correction.DGG (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with whatever, so long as some uninvolved admins are monitoring the situation. I could be happy with anything beyond the current status quo of refractory tendentiousness. I will say that, after extensive discussion of and reference to WP:3RR by several other editors, Strider12's understanding of it is that he "has a right to edit this article -- up to three times a day if I have the stamina for it." MastCell Talk 05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Soapboxing?

    Could someone please look at this? User:Benjamin Gatti introduced it to Illegitamacy after it became clear that the content is likely to be deleted as the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Regan Miller. This content has been deleted also as Benjamin Gatti/Judge Regan Miller. He also added part of the content to [my talk page, complete with external link to radio station. I can't be objective, but I think this is soapboxing and unconstructive. Someone objective needs to take a look. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The content has since been removed from Illegitimacy by Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs) and JzG (talk · contribs). Not much activity from Benjamin Gatti, since then. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I put it in illigitamacy where it more properly belongs. There is clearly a growing movement to pin societies problems on persons of untraditional heritage. I'm curious why documenting this verifiable trend should be censored? If a judge believes that a certain class of people, denoted by circumstances of birth, are less likely to be innocent, and more likely to be serial killers - it's pretty important. Personally I think it compared to the Bell-Shaped curve in that it marginalizes a broad class of persons. I would have thought Wikipedia was open to cataloging these trends, that in a sense, the beauty of Wikipedia is that it doesn't protect the powerful by censoring their outrageous bigotry. - but hey - have it your way. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unwarranted block of Goodshoped35110s

    The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Resolved
     – It is in the past, plenty of attention has been given to the block and no wrongdoing has been found. 1 != 2 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus from discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#My recent block of Goodshoped35110s clearly endorses the block. Lets stop this circus. Daniel 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On 6 December, User:EVula blocked User:Goodshoped35110s without warning or evidence and proceeded to vote canvass his unblock discussion. Is this not a violation of admin guidelines? Sure, Goodshoped was a little blunt with his username warnings, but let the record show that all of his edits have been in good faith. As far as I see, this was uncalled for and deserves immediate attention. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was not good faith. I'm a bit skeptical about the length of the block, though; for a first offense, 48 hours seems quite severe. On the other hand, I think it is highly inappropriate for this person to be logging out to evade the block, and that you're encouraging him to do so. Sean William @ 23:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All he was saying there was that the template did not hold true. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 24 hours would have been better IMHO, but not the worst block in the world. Gp75motorsports - not sure what you're trying to gain by running to Jimbo..... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse. Goodshoped35110 has yet to assume good faith while he has been here. He hasn't been involved in any incidents but he is definitly a liability. Good block, EVula!--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who blames him? I wouldn't want to have any of my pages vandalized once I left. Then there'd be nothing I could do about it, so best to just get them all protected before I log out. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And see here. Saying "that ends that" is also not assuming good faith. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your" pages? Have you read WP:OWN, or even just the warnings at the bottom of every page you edit? If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. ? Corvus cornixtalk 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    EVula may have been cranky at some stage, but who hasn't had a bad day? Goodshoped35110, on the other hand, constantly assumes bad faith--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (edcon x3, that's gotta be a new record)By "mine" I mean pages that were on my userspace. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh, no, I just had three on the cpost below--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure how you can say I blocked without evidence when I provided my rationale in both the block itself and on his talk page.[54][55] I also don't appreciate being told that I was canvassing for support on the block; I reported it here just the same as I would with any other editor that was being highly disruptive (but not enough that would warrant an outright indefinite block). Is there any particular reason this is popping back up so long (almost a week) after I did it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:goodshoped35110s/Archive 1

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 2

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 3

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 4

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 5

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 6

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 7

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 8

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 9

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 10

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 11

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive 12

    User talk:Goodshoped35110s

    As I said before, you gave NO WARNINGS. I'm sure you had your reasons to block, but it'd do a little good to at least warn them. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a fair block to me, I perhaps might have done less time but that is just me. 1 != 2 01:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this discussion and the clear consensus that developed, what is the purpose of bringing this issue here again, five days after the block has expired? And combined with this, it gives the appearance of forum shopping. I believe this issue is resolved. — Satori Son 02:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, this is a pointless thread. The block has expired, if Goodshoped wishes to return and contribute in good faith, let him. If he misbehaves, block him. That's how the policy works. It is a non-issue. Regards,

    Keilana 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Strange functionality with WP codes

    The WP codes seem to be behaving strangely lately. When you link to a WP page, such as WP:U, the link turns into "Wikipedia:U". And if you visit the page by hand, it says "Redirected from Wikipedia:U" instead of "Redirected from WP:U". Not a huge problem, but surely a bug? It leads to redlinks on several policy pages. Nimman (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WP: vs WIkipedia:. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there's something being tested. Attempting to get some of these redirects out of the mainspace. All broken shortcutss should be back up soon--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 23:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tap (valve) Entry — 3x Vandalized

    See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tap_%28valve%29&diff=prev&oldid=177509792 ], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tap_%28valve%29&diff=prev&oldid=177509940 ] and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tap_%28valve%29&diff=next&oldid=177509940 ] for specific incidents. PLEASE CORRECT AND PURSUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.50.170 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Its been reverted--Hu12 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deadlyfix

    Not sure if this is blockable or not:

    [56] [57]

    Could an admin or someone else look these as well as this user's other contribs and make a decision. Thank you. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Was blocked for 24 hours just 5 minutes before your post here. I'll try to help monitor after the block is up. — Satori Son 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for two-week block of user with static IP 24.105.212.83

    I am requesting that the following user's participation on the following page be reviewed. I believe that this user may have violated both the vandalism and three-revert rules of Wikipedia:

    contributions

    The user has ignored a warning from administrator Kukuni regarding his/her participation on the Wikipedia page for the City of Hudson, New York. The following comment has also been posted to their talk page, with no effect:

    This user has repeatedly inserted and re-inserted a handful of edits, typically without modification, despite a wide variety of attempts by other disparate users to make the page more neutral and factual. These repeated posts include hyperbolic and promotional claims which have no place in an encyclopedia entry. Other posts propose clearly revisionist history or even absurdism, which may constitute vandalism. No sources are cited for the users various and repeated claims. Multiple users have attempted to call the attention of 24.105.212.83 via the discussion page. As this appears to be a static IP address, I would urge administrators to block this address for a period of a week or more.

    Since the time of these warnings, the user in question has re-posted material more than three times, and also made personal attacks within the body of this page entry.

    This page is clearly the focus of an all-out edit war, and needs administration in general. However, a review of the edit history suggests that 80-90% of disputed edits are originating from this single IP address.

    I believe that a two-week "cool down" period would be appropriate in this instance. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 24.148.108.186 (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't seem to be a static IP address, but rather a generic IP address issued by a cable-television ISP.
    In any case, the proper procedure for normal non-admins like us would be to place escalating NPOV warnings on the talk page (I personally think that by now, the final warning {{subst:uw-npov4}} should be sufficient, and when it gets exceeded, report it at WP:AIV.
    You could also report the IP for a WP:3RR violation, provided the appropriate warning is placed on the talk page and the violation occurs thereafter.
    Another alternative is to request semi-protection, to prevent anonymous IPs from editing the article.
    On the other hand, in looking at the edits from this IP address over the past day or two, I don't see them as disruptive or violating WP:NPOV. Someone else may disagree. -Amatulic (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of copyvio images

    Someone please delete copyvios that this user uploaded in December. Thanks. Miranda 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Angry Sun

    The user Angry Sun (talk · contribs) has a habit of reverting large amounts of edits to make small changes. This is especially apparent in Godzilla: Unleashed, where the user recently removed several days worth of contributions to alter the position of a singular item on a list. Just64helpin (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikistalking

    Can I get someone to give this editor a boot up the bum for this edit, quite inappropriate for the article's talk page? --Pete (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How precisely is this Wikistalking? Metros (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:Wikistalking. It's now become the subject of an edit war, with the original editor insisting on his right to publish personal information. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has he followed you around? if not this doesn't really fit WP:STALK, the comment was rather uncivil but he only pointed past sockpuppetry on your behalf. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't follow. What personal info. was revealed here? Metros (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he means past sockpuppetry but that information is public and can be seen in the user's block log. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well according to a thread 2 below this and based on this edit, the concern appears to focus on a public figure...that's what I don't get. Metros (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, we have an editor who is 1. posting information not related to the article in a talkpage, 2. fails to assume good faith on behalf of the other editor and 3. has posted information that attempts to draw links between a user (presumably Skying ie "Pete") and a public figure. Last time I looked, Skyring has only mentioned his first name and hasn't mentioned his surname. So why is editor Brendan (who I believe has also inadvertantly outed himself as well with his post) allowed to make this personal attack, fail to assume good faith, attempt to out another editor (see here) and also bypass WP:TALK all in one go? Shot info (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your skill at telling one skewed side of the story is admirable, Shot info. My comments were in response to Skyring's one-man jury using the talkpage to attacking User:Lester's credibility and supposedly "poor behaviour" -- which in your rush to convict me, I notice you steadfastly ignore. It's fine to have double standards like that, so long as you're prepared to be held to scrutiny for them. I simply pointed out that Skyring should not be preachy when he has committed far graver infractions in the past, and pointed out my interest in not jokes and silliness but facts, of which I gave an example. You seem to be asserting some link between my example and the identity of another editor, a link which I did not directly make and the substance of which I am entirely unaware, so how I could be outing someone that I don't know is quite beyond me. I don't know how you think that also means I've outed myself, or what relevance that holds? One wonders what your keen personal interest is in all of this, that you felt it necessary to launch an ANI offensive against me for unremarkable uncontroversial talkpage comments. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your comments are inappropriate per WP:TALK. You are attempting to out another user, this is blockable (even if the information is incorrect) per WP:BLOCK. Please consider refactoring your edits in the light of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:TALK. Shot info (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin, I personally won't be blocking here. I don't think any other admin will either. Brendan has stated that he is aware of no connection between his comment and any user here. So, in keeping in lines with AGF, shouldn't you also assume what he says is true? Metros (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the Leader of a political party "Peter", an newsgroup writer "Peter", another writer "Brendan" (who stalked the before mentioned "Peter") and now editors "Pete" and "Brendan" and one of the "Brendan" making reference to "facts". While there is no reason for one Pete to be the other (and the other Brendan). Hmmmmm, well I guess sometimes 2+2 can be stopped before the equals sign at times? Thank you for continuing Wikipedia's practise of not protecting editor's personal information (however incorrect) per Durova. Shot info (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you trying to say? Please make some sense. Please also retract your false allegation that I have wikistalked anyone. Correction: you appear to be talking about "another writer Brendan" in that particular comment about stalking, who you appear to be saying may or may not be me, although who "another writer Brendan" is that you're talking about, or where you got this "other writer Brendan" from, remains a baffling (albeit irrelevant to this discussion) mystery. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you are Brendan Jones, I have no need to retract anything. And if you are Brendan Jones, then I still have no need to retract anything. What the problem is, you have attempted to out (ie/ publish personal information....however "right or wrong") of another user. And as typical, ANi have failed to back up WP:BLOCK in this fashion. Not the first time but sometimes you need to see which side of the "personal information fence" admins fall on. Shot info (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual problem is that you believe your one-eyed opinions and misconceptions to be fact. As they say, Join The Conspiracy. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, and here at ANi too. I wonder if our friends the admins will have a look at WP:NPA as well? Or if they will put it into the too hard basket (like publishing personal information)? Shot info (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply made critical observations about your imbalanced treatment of editors (in respect of your complaint of WP:NPA and WP:AGF breaches against me plus allusions to WP:STALK by falsely alluding that I am someone called 'Brendan Jones'; all the while ignoring the kangaroo court being conducted by User:Skyring against User:Lester on the Talk:John Howard page). If you want to be treated with good faith, then start acting in good faith yourself, and start being consistent in your objections. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Skyring and User:Lester can pay for their own crimes, as was pointed out in this very ANi when PJ was blocked for a month. You should read for comprehension rather than falsely stating that am I alluding that you are anybody - of course your shrill defence and writing style is very similar to somebody...but I'm not going to out you. You failed to note that I pretty much stayed out of Skyring and Lester's discussion until you waded in with your personal attacks and attempted outing of another user. And the fact that you think that I should join your POV in order to be "consistant", well that's telling enough. Now, there's more info about for our friends the admins to once again mull over, and probably ignore, like what they often do when it gets too hard. Which I expected to be honest (reality is sometimes hard to accept in WP :-). Admins and the ANi have been broken for a while now - as the Durova incident has proven. Shot info (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OUTING is of particular note for admins to refer to. Shot info (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The posting of those links had no other conceivable purpose than to suggest an outing of a fellow editor's real-life identity. Brendan's "but I didn't really say it" games now don't cut it. Blocked for 48h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Brendan Jones isn't a Wikipedia editor, SFAIK, and in any case has always behaved in a gentlemanly fashion. May I ask that this Brendan's repeated edits revealing personal information be deleted? That is, the diffs removed from the database, as occurred a couple of years back when another editor posted my name and address. --Pete (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone really has been a public figure, putting their personal photograph on their personal Wiki userspace, along with links to various blogs and links to activities which have been covered in the media, it is inevitable that someone else will recognise that person. If the complainant was really concerned that someone would recognise him, he would take down the photos and wotnot from his Wikispace, or it will only provide bait for other users to say "I know you".Lester 12:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Recall/

    An ongoing recall discussion is location at User:Mercury/RFC. Mercury 04:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Failing to WP:AGF, engaging in WP:NPA and not abiding by WP:TALK

    Hi all, User:Brendan persists in engaging in non-Wikipedian conduct by attempting to "out" another editor [58]. Firstly this behavour is completely at odds with dealing with other editors, and it has no place in the talk page of John Howard. Would an admin please review and make some recommendations? Many Thanks Shot info (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already being discussed 2 threads up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikistalking. Metros (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, Ta. Didn't see that. Shot info (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat from Sahajhist

    Sahajhist (talk · contribs) posted a legal threat in reaction to an article being temporarily protected. "Looks like legal action against Wikipedia will be needed."[59] I posted a {uw-legal} tamplate and asked him to revert the edit.[60] In reply he wrote, "you can block me if you like Mark, but other meditation practitioners will take my place. If pages are going to be permanently edit protected then legal action is very definately an option, and any bullying by yourself would be duly noted, most probably under your real name."[61] Does anyone think that a block is called for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and I've blocked them. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it hasn't done much to slow the threats.[62][63] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page is now blocked. Are there articles in particular that need to watched? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you please, that would be very helpful:
    A team of editors working on these articles have pushed the boundaries too hard. Sahajhist was recently found to have been using sock puppets. Try-the-vibe (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for repeated harassment of Simon D M (talk · contribs), a new editor with an opposing POV. Sfacets (talk · contribs), the main editor, has been blocked six times in six weeks, the latest for ten days. Sfacets is one of the most persistent POV warriors I've seen, relying heavily on sophistry and the revert button. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further legal threats from User:Johncons

    Resolved
     – Page locked, implied threat stricken from the page. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanently banned user User:Johncons continues to make implied legal threats on his talk page [64]. It is my opinion that he's only ever been here to provoke people and responding directly would be the wrong thing to do. Perhaps this talk page should be protected? Ros0709 (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already requested at WP:RPP Mayalld (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already protected and redacted the threat. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also took the liberty of redacting a pretty damn near-unambiguous legal threat. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sock puppet of banned User:Fiet Nam

    User:Chinese has a V is a blatantly obvious sock puppet of User:Fiet Nam, who was banned for messing around with articles on linguistics. The "new" user hasn't made the slightest attempt to disguise his identity and is back to his usual pattern of cranky editing and wrecking content. --Folantin (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've found a decent amount of other sockpuppet accounts:
    All are now indefinitely blocked per behavioral evidence, and I am now cleaning up their contributions to the userspace.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should he come back (again) contact me on my talk page, and I'll investigate as to whether or not the behavioral evidence matches as it did with Tipa Topa and Dutch Users that I found through the similar contributions of Fiet Nam and Chinese has a V.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=177642948"