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 Akidd dublin (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 13 May 2006 (I FIND THE TENOR UNSUITABLE FOR EDITING ANY ARTICLE.). 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



    User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

    Minutes after I add Category:Kurdish inhabited region to a half dozen articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], User:Cool Cat nominates the category for deletion.

    This is confusing, because Cool Cat contacted me via IRC to get me to create just such a category. Unless I'm misrembering (I _am_ getting old, you know ;-) this. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? It seems that his objection is not in the category's existence but in its use. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region

    User:Cool Cat has a history of #POV editing, and has been enjoined from disruptively editing articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds.

    He has vociferously sought the deletion of all categories related to Kurds:

    Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 17#Category:Kurdistan
    Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 3#Category:Kurdistan

    plus the current votes:

    Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces
    Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6#Category:Kurdish cities

    During the second CFD for Category:Kurdistan he stated: I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me.

    Category:Kurdish inhabited region was created by User:Ed Poor as part of discussion on Category talk:Kurdistan where User:Cool Cat has been adamantly opposed to all efforts to establish consensus on usage of this category. User:Francs2000, whom User:Cool Cat asked to comment, ended up telling him that you need to change your attitude.

    I agree, he needs to change his attitude. --Moby 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do agree entirely with Moby's summary. Cool Cat's disruptions do it hard to write articles about anythings related to Kurds. And it is indeed not an extenuating circumstance that user themselve stated, as quoted above, that they intended to sabotage the Category:Kurdistan, as it during the debate for its deletion was clear that it would stay. I hope some action will be taken, since the alternative seems to be continuing of disruptive edit wars. Bertilvidet 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The ArbCom verdict which you've posted above says that he should be blocked for up to 3 days if he engages edits disruptively in Kurdish related areas. We've got several people saying he has done so, therefore I block 2 days. -lethe talk + 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify my position here, Cool Cat invited me into the discussion claiming that he was having POV issues with Kurdistan related articles, implying that he had received death threats from other users as a result of the discussion getting heated (see here). I got involved and made some progress with the other users in getting some agreement over the inclusion of Category:Kurdistan in articles, and this I believe has led to some of the sub-categories such as those listed above being created. I have since stepped back a bit due largely to real life events. I will say that although Cool Cat had some valid points in his arguements against the inclusion of material in articles about the disputed region, the way he went about making his point was unnecessarily aggressive, in my opinion. I also stand by telling him that he needs to change his opinion, after he stated (and I paraphrase) that he would be unable to negotiate a consensus on certain subject areas. -- Francs2000 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to me that the comments you're referring to as death threats were targeting you (for reasons I have no clue about) and had nothing to do with User:Cool Cat or anyone else involved in the Kurdish categorization discussions; I certainly made no such threats. And thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had enough of this. As Cool Cat's mentor I'm banning him from editing articles, templates and categories related to the kurds. He may still edit related discussion pages. This ban is initially to run for one week, to be made permanent subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The ban includes creation or nomination for deletion. See the announcement on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, too! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is to be kept it should be called Kurdish inhabited regions as per the naming policy to use plurals in categories. How long was this ban on Kurdish related articles for Coolcat? (Mgm - not logged in) - 131.211.210.16 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Use of plural makes sense to me, I'll suggest it on the CFD. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a copy of a message I posted to Tony Sidaway:
    While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (which is in my opinion even more disruptive -- bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?
    I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination of Category:Kurdish inhabited region was the action that prompted me to start this discussion here, but the disruption has been on-going on pages such as Category talk:Kurdistan and Talk:Batman, Turkey for some time. He has removed Category:Kurdistan from many article (awhile ago...) and has been rather clear about his intent to oppose all efforts at categorizing Kurdish articles. Given his history, I would think a ban on Kurdish-related editing an apt remedy. An hour ago I left a note on his talk page and he screamed at me. I don't see him as willing to work with others on this subject. --Moby 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentors I see it as our main jobs to keep Cool_Cat (talk · contribs) editing effectively and to avoid another rendezvous with the arbitration committee. As always, it is not Cool Cat's judgement on content that is in question but the way in which he interacts with others on some subjects. Yesterday he was blocked for forty-eight hours by Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a result of the complaint by Moby_Dick (talk · contribs). In Lethe's view, Cool Cat has edited disruptively on the subject of the Kurds so arbitration remedy 5 is invoked.
    This isn't the first time since the arbitration that we've had trouble with Cool Cat over Kurds. From early March he has made some unconstructive AfDs:
    and some unconstructive comments on others:
    There is an ongoing concern, and I think a valid one, that Cool Cat permits his edits on such issues to be influenced too strongly by his sympathies with Turkish nationalism. He repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia.
    Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so.
    It is for this reason that I announced the one-week ban.
    However, User:MacGyverMagic is also one of Cool Cat's mentors, and although in this case I have acted alone I do not intend to take actions with which any of my fellow mentors disagree.
    In view of MacGyverMagic's opposition, I rescind the ban pending further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for documenting these other activities; the scope of the issue is greater than I was aware (and I now understand the restaurant references).
    While I disagree with User:Cool Cat's judgment on many of the Kurd-issues here, it is his attitude that is most troublesome. In his response below I see no sign that he sees any validity to the objections others have raised -- he appears to be simply digging in his heels. If no action is taken on this issue, what's to stop him from continuing to obstruct efforts involving Kurds in the future? Presumably this whole incident will have been noted by a variety of people, but I don't expect many to involve themselves in the issue (which I would welcome).
    I understand that banning someone is a serious step and should not be taken lightly. I will avoid editing any of the Kurd articles and categories against consensus. If a clear direction on an appropriate course to take on Kurdish categorization comes out of this whole dispute I'll be pleased. --Moby 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption of Batman, Turkey

    A review of the editing on Batman, Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the last two months will reveal that User:Cool Cat has edit warred and generally disrupted all efforts by a number of editors, including myself. He has repeatedly removed categories related to Kurds, and sources and statements about Kurds, and he has been joined by anons that make the same redactions that he does. At the moment the article is protected due to an edit war (that I was not involved in) over the addition of a paragraph about the killing of a Kurdish child by Turkish Security Forces (I did add the paragraph and a source). While it was anons that edit warred with various users, it was User:Cool Cat that argued on the talk page against the inclusion of the paragraph . --Moby 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool Cat's response to all of this

    It is quite pathetic when one has to defend himself to his mentor... I'll list the articles, categories, and templates I have placed for deletion below. I am going to include ones Tony Sidaway did not include as well.

    I'd like to point out the reason why we do not do polls for deletion. All deletion processes are a concensus gathering process. However on occasions disruptive behaviour such as Vote Stacking do happen.

    Hence I will explain all of the deletion votes I started or participated. I will try to be brief for all of them.

    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
      • Article was originaly talking about two countries that have supposively existed. One only lasted 2 years while another lasted less than 6 months. The article(s) barely occupy a paragraph and had two sections I believe.
      • Article at a point was comparing the british goverment with saddam as "the british goverment gassed the kurds".
      • I was in contact with Tony on IRC about this deletion, I do not recall the details but he did not say or imply such a deletion would be disruptive.
      • During the vfd the articles quality was improved sligtly
      • Perhaps article is much suitable to be a section on an article with the title "Modern History of the Kurds" as article cant grow much even when inflated with lists of cabinate members.
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
      • When I placed this article up for deleteion it was talking about an insignificant restourant which two kurds supposively had been shot. At the time the article barely could be considered a stub. After the deletion article was slightly inproved and renamed. It became a historicaly significant incident and hence became article worthy as an incident rather than info about the restourant.
      • I discussed the possible afd of this article with Tony Sidaway on IRC and he said it was pretty useless and that he said it wouldnt probably survive a deletion.
      • The result of my Afd is a better article with a better title.
      • This article should be a section at "Modern history of the Kurds" as article is too short and cant grow as the incident was quite minor and all details have been presented.
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan
      • Other editors, one being Gruntness feels this article exists soely as a pov fork. Syrian Kurdistan was deleted for that reason
      • There was a case of vote stacking over 14 people were notified of this afd of which all but one voted favorably to the advertisier (user:Bertilvidet) with keep. My complaint about a vote stacking generated milimal response and no action.
      • Article currently gives a short intoduction to kurdish history which is a copy of History of the Kurds and a number of articles. Kurdistan is not oversized and we do have a Kurds in Turkey if we are to talk about the kurds. We can talk about Kurdish nationalism in its own article.
      • If we had a sensable deletion process this article would have been deleted. If you think otherwise please provide a rationale at what purpose does this article with pov titile, Turkish Kurdistan, serve that cant be achieved through Kurds in Turkey and Kurdish nationalism.
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
      • It is a strange article. I believe this article is nothing but pusedo science and promotes racisim. When I nominated this article for deleteion there was a VERY LARGE dna picture and it was less than neutral. it might be a nice addition to a section under Kurdish people. BUT etnicity is a cultural concept not genetic. Genetic would be race and last time I checked Kurds were just an ethnic minority.
    • Category:Kurdish terrorists
      • I got this category speedy deleted.
      • I personaly believe Abdullah Ocalan is a Kurdish terrorist. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
    • Category:PKK victims
      • I got this category speedy deleted.
      • I personaly believe PKK is a Terrorist organisation and anybody they killed is a victim. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
    • Template:Kurd-politician-stub (vote)
      • I participated in this vote expressing why the stub category is pov. Stub types have very explicit guidelines.
      • I'd like to point out comments of some of the people voting keep... They are by far intruguing
      • I have not initiated this deletion
      • The "unless we consider kurdish a nationality and kurdistan a country which would be pov not shared by international treaties" comment tony highlighted is in parallel with stub guidelines.
        • While a Category:Kurdish politicians may be approporate. I would however prefer a categorisation similar to the format politicians in United States is covered such as Category:African American politicians. Tagging a Kurd in Iraq and Turkey under the same category would be problematic and confusing. However I do not intend to do anything about it as my block is proof wikipedia is not worth my devotion anymore.
    • Template:Kurdistan-politician-stub
      • Speedy deleted as per vote mentioned above.
      • User:Retau created this
    • Template:Kurdistan-bio-stub (vote)
      • Probably will be deleted as a back log as per stub sorting practice.
      • User:Retau created this
    • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces and #Category:Kurdish cities
      • We do not categorise provinces, cities, or other landmarks based on ethnicity. I do not see why kurds are treated diferently from rest of wikipedia.
      • If demographic information about an ethnicity is avalible it can be presented in an article.
      • Who determines which article fits in these category or not? Kurdistan does not have defined borders nor are there any reliable data on Kurdish population.
      • Categories are navigation aids. The basis of such categories for provinces and cities is based on "who owns the place". Categories are not tools for territory grab. We do not tag every province and city in mainland china under Category:Taiwan just because the goverment claims it. Kurds do not even have a country to claim territory from.
      • User:Retau created both of the categories
      • See User:El_C's comment about User:Retau on the next section.
    • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region
      • Originaly intended to be a comprimise to Category:Kurdistan. I requested its creation from user:Ed poor via email and/or irc.
      • I later changed my mind as categorising based on ethnicity still is a poor practice. No example of ethnic tagging exists in articles like New York or California.
      • It is more problematic as we do not have any reliable statistics regarding the Kurds. We do not know how many kurds there are let alone know what fraction of the population they occupy as no census about ethnicity was EVER held in the past 7 decades at least to my knowlege.
    • Categories I haven't touched nor intend to touch Category:Kurdish people, Category:History of the Kurds, Category:Kurdish musicians, Category:Kurdish politicians, Category:Kurdish writers,... List goes on I am well aware of many other categories, articles, and templates related to the kurds. So I am definaltly not trying to delete everything related to kurds at random.
    • My actions are infact reactions to mass creation of many contraversial categories all only exist soley to grab territory. I also raise concerns about tiny articles that have no way of growing. None of my actions have "distupted" the articles in question unless you consider improvement as disruption.
    --Cat out 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On at least one matter of fact I must correct Cool Cat. He and I discussed the article Mykonos (restaurant) and I edited to add a reference from a Time article. I told him at 2007 UTC on March 1, 2006, that, as with all deletion candidates I edit, "I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted." I had told him at 2000, "the case is obviously notable. It led to an international incident" -Tony Sidaway 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I actualy interprted that as the article has a chance to survive as much as a snowball in hell. In any case my nomination was for a non-notable restourant. Overal the nomination improved the article, not disrupt. For instance it was renamed as it was not about this random restourant. --Cat out 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can see in retrospect that my wording was unclear. I can see how this unintentionally misled you on the subject. --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm done, I do however owe you an apology for misinterpreting your words. I can also finaly understand why you kinda acted wierdly (from my perspective) at the time. Having said that, I am curious on what you think of the evidence I presented below? --Cat out 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Curiously, User:Cool Cat has responded here while blocked [7][8]. His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him. --Moby 09:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I would just like to say that I support Cool Cat on this matter. The Kurdish categories were deleted before by nominations because of the vagueness of the borders of the proposed "Kurdistan" region - which had lead to edit wars in the past, they were created again by the User:Retau (Who may be a sockpuppet of User:Xebat according to CheckUser [9] - who was banned recently for a year according to the Aucaman ArbCom [10]). I believe User:Moby Dick has turned this simple matter to something very personal which I regret to say that will not help the matter. -- - K a s h Talk | email 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've little opinion of the conjecture of a reincarnated Davenbelle, but there is a qualm in this editor's behavior. As per the above edvidence, this editor's initial confrontation with me conflicted over a userpage misunderstanding. This is a archived discussion on my talkpage which can be found here. After the I refuted the accusation, said editor took to being my shadow, which I noted after a number of appearences in locations across the encyclopedia which were in direct contact to my usertalk page (he has it consistently watchlisted you see). I made a final verification of this after he made a spell check on my talkpage, confirming he sees almost every comment posted there. [11] This has been prevelant ever since the allegation on AN/I, but I never gave it much heed and it didn't bother me, so I let it alone. There were no subsequent direct confrontations after this incident, so I assumed good faith, and didn't have a valid complaint anyway, since, despite his occasional trolling, Moby makes excellent contributions to article space, not to mention ground-breaking work. [12] Proceeding that incident, I took his talkpage off my watchlist and went about other things. I soon forgot the subject and the user, and made the presumption he had as well.
    During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.231.130.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [13], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [14] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [15] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [16]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[17], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent. Not too much of a problem, since it was bedtime anyway.
    The editor in question persisted. After a clearly confused william asked how it was relevant, Moby replied I circumvented my block and I was still up to something [18] (I was still plotting my master scheme, you know) and that I should still be punished. Now expasperated, I made another note on the talkpage and explained the situation in full. [19] which defused the matter. Around the ensuing timeframe, he proceeded to conflict in the Kurd-nonsense with Cool Cat, who was subsquently blocked. I'm aware that Cool Cat has a aggressive viewpoint on this subject and has encountered much opposition on this before, so I didn't comment on the matter, although it was quite obvious to the informed Moby didn't report the rfar violation in good faith. I took note of this after seeing his replies to various editors on subject on WP:AN/I, which gave me great cause for concern on his intent:
    Revision as of 09:45, May 9, 2006 - "Thanks for you comment!"
    Revision as of 09:28, May 10, 2006 - "..His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him."
    I drew the line there. At wikipedia we report violations to enforce stability on article space and the workings of the site. Seeing this joy in the punishment of another user was very disturbing. One must really take into account weather this user is advocating the well-being of the article or muggery of those he disagrees with.
    There certainly is a problem here.
    At the current date, I was prompted by MONGO on my talkpage to accept an rfa [20], which I was hesitant, but felt I was ready for the additional workload. Before I accepted the nomination, I made note that I was being closely survallianced by Moby and I had no doubt a opposition would arise. I was correct in the assesment (I would have been honestly surprised had he not taken participation) [21], with said user agressively making the point of my image forgery and the rebuttal I made regarding his outrageous accusation. I was presently away from the computer, so when I returned I was atonished to find my rfa had already been withdrawn in an act of kindness by the nominator.
    I stress that its not obtuse to believe Moby may be Davenbelle, as I'm still utterly baffled as to how a new user can simply migrate to a userpage, search the history extensively, and blow an ensuing argument about a misunderstanding out of porportion. It also strikes one as odd when a user immediately engages in long-standing conflict about aftermentioned article and makes reverts unusual for one so new. However, despite the sockkery or not, it needs to be known this editor has engaged in trolling and many contributions have been verified to be unwelcome at this encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, look who showed up. Yes, I opposed your RFA -- what were you thinking, with blocks just last week?
    As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.
    I do thank you for your praise of some of my edits; hope you don't take offence -- In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex is a wonderful book.
    Also, you did comment on the matter involving User:Cool Cat and Kurds -- remember now?
    --Moby 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (who is not a troll, thank you)[reply]
    You sound just like a pouty child trying to lie his out of a fix by pretending it's all Cool Cat's fault. Give it up. I'm not impressed. -ZeroTalk 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: While I believe that CoolCat hasn't looked especially open to compromise, it is unfair to declare that all of these actions are "disruptive" - it is unfortunate that he changed his mind about a compromise category but changing your mind should always be allowed. There is no general consensus about ethnic-geography categories. Indeed, these Kurdish examples seem to be the sole example of the type; presumably because most people find the idea of an ill-defined ethnic-geography category a bad idea. I am open to the idea if implemented properly, but the three ethnic-geography categories CoolCat has nominated were all, quite simply, dire. They had POV issues. They were poorly defined. The most recent one even had a grammatically incorrect name! I do not believe it is disruptive to nominate for deletion something that, in the reasonable opinions of many well-respected Wikipedians (and there are many who agreed with CoolCat - see the votes), does not belong on Wikipedia. CoolCat has not been mass-deleting Kurdish-related articles. He has not been attempting deletions of neutral, generally accepted, Kurdish categories. He has made a contentious attempt to expunge ethnic-geography cross-over categories, but these have widespread opposition from many sources so I don't think that it is genuinely disruptive. Nobody should be forced to compromise on the issue of ethnic-geography categories, since many Wikipedians reasonably disagree strongly with their creation - failure to agree on a compromise isn't necessarily a sign of disruption if you honestly believe (especially with something as "binary" in nature as a category) that something is a harmful or damaging idea. The fact that many of his nominations were speedied is an indication that he isn't being entirely disruptive, perhaps the restaurant and genetics AfDs were the closest to that mark. The thing that seems to be the real problem is that CoolCat isn't making a secret of his personal views. While sometimes he edits in a way that shows he is actually being a "Good Wikipedian" and going against personal preference in the interests of the encyclopedia (e.g. with the Kurdish terrorist category) when he is making a positive, useful contribution that seems "in tune" with his views, he looks like a disruptive POV-monger. Which in turn makes people vote against him unthinkingly... It would be better, perhaps, if he kept some of these topics at arm's length and merely brought these instances to the attention of Wikipedians known to be neutral on the Kurdistan question, to allow them to decide whether to make a deletion request or not. I simply can not believe that anybody would have cut any slack to Category:Hispanic inhabited region for instance: it would have been wiped off the face of the 'pedia without any second thoughts; however, the fact that it is CoolCat and the Kurds has meant that this category has a surprising number of keep votes. However, whether CoolCat wants to take this degree of extra care (and restrict his editing accordingly) in cases which are fundamentally non-disruptive should really be for CoolCat to decide, not any of us. TheGrappler 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Moby Dick (talk · contribs)

    I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.

    1. User:Moby Dick has a total of 344 edits as of the preparation of this report.
      • I'd consider him to be new to wikipedia as he has been a wikipedian since december. This alone is not a problem though.
      • User:Davenbelle's last edit was on 03:20, 6 December 2005, User:Moby Dick made his first edit on 01:29, 23 December 2005
    2. On 03:02, 26 January 2006 users makes his first edit into the wikipedia namespace and it is opposing my RfA [22]
      • He seems to have located my RfA conviniantly. It his his 84th edit. He also makes a very professional edit by incrementing the oppose counter. Its something often oldies fail to notice
      • We have not edited any articles in common meaning he did not know me at all.
      • He participated in a total of 2 RfA aside from my own. One for Megaman Zero (as oppose) and another for Khoikhoi (support). Both are figures I know. He is definately not a frequent voter.
      • User:Davenbelle had opposed my other previous two of my rfas.
        • One of these RfAs were filed by MegamanZero
        • User:Davenbelle managed to oppose it before the nominator, megaman zero, could support
    3. On 07:57, 25 February 2006 MobyDick conviniantly discovered "forgery" on Megaman Zero's user page [23]
      • Long ago, on 20:05, 2 January 2006, User:Megaman Zero complained about User:Davenbelles behaviour on User:Davenbelles talk page. [24]
      • This is just 3 edits after him opposing my rfa. Mind the month long gap. It is strange to say the least.
      • User:Davenbelle gave User:Megaman_Zero the award.
      • This incident had made its way to the ANB. This is mobydicks first post to the ANB [25]
    4. On 07:21, 10 March 2006, Moby Dick informs user:Aucaman about my RfAr [26]
      • It is possible that he could have learnt about the existance of the RfAr from my 3rd rfa nomination as I have mentioned it there. However a key question is why did he tell this to Aucaman. He has no edits in comon with Aucaman. Nor was he involved with anything related to the kurds.
      • This is his first post for 11 days, in the previous post he was complaining about megaman zeros award on the ANB. [27] [28]
    5. On 02:41, 11 March 2006 [29] [30] user participated in his first deletion votes, both were initiated by Megaman Zero
    6. On 05:09, 11 March 2006 this user oposed the copy vio nomination I made [31]
      • This is the first and last time the user participates in copyright matters
      • Davnbelle was involved with the Armenian Genocide article and was practicaly opposing anything I suggested. It can be said that was his entier contribution.
    7. On 05:58, 11 March 2006 [32] user opposed the deletion of Category:Kurdistan which I initiated.
      • user had not been involved with any other issues regarding Kurds or any such deletion votes for that matter.
    8. On 02:51, 13 March 2006 [33] user got involved with an article about kurds for the first time on Batman, Turkey article. He has repetively restored "Kurdish dominance" line by reverting my edit. This continued on
      • user:Bertilvidet is one other party desperately working to force "Kurdish dominance" to the lead.
      • Davenbelle also prefered to oppose me whenever possible. This might be too vauge to be considered as evidence but take a look at [34] and [35]
    9. On 02:20, 1 May 2006 user created the KHRP redirect. [36]
      • There is nothing disruptive with that. however if you take a look at [37] you will see Davenbelle had initiated the article redirect leads to.
    These are the coincidences I have found on frist sight. There are of course other cases I can post but I want to keep my report brief.
    Among 6,884,255 many articles and 47,984,284 number of users, MobyDick's edits intersect with Davenbelle on more than one ocasion. Would make a great statistics research paper.
    I wont come up with conclusions but I find the material I just posted very interesting.
    --Cat out 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I actually liked this evidence gathering. Interesting indeed. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too long, didn't read. Telex 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too long, indeed -- however I felt obliged to read it. User:Cool Cat is making this false allegation in order to divert attention from the issue of his behavior and, it would seem, in order to entangle me in his arbitration case. It is also not the first time has has made this sort of claim: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cool Cat. While the factual details -- who has edited what, for example -- of his accusation appear to be accurate (I've not checked), his spin and interpretation are entirely self-serving.
    I believe I first encountered User:Cool Cat on the first CFD of Category:Kurdistan and did not like his obvious intent of limiting Kurdish content on Wikipedia. I have used Wikipedia as a reference for years and its greatest problem is inconsistent accuracy of information and it is the behavior of editors such as User:Cool Cat that is responsible for this.
    User:Cool Cat's implied accusation (which he makes explicit here) can easily be explained by the fact that articles and users he refers to are all related; they involve Kurds or they involve him. He expresses concern that my edits are too "professional" for one so "new" -- as if this were the only wiki in the world.
    I would add again that he does not appear to be interested seeking a consensus. He efforts here only serve to make the editing environment hostile.
    --Moby 10:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting argument. What wiki do you normaly work for? Tonikaku, I may have been wrong on Amask's case but that has nothing to do with your case. Amask has participated in only two votes and one or two articles. Lets consider your statistics.
    • You have participated in a total of 3 rfas, the first one you have ever voted was my rfa and you voted oppose, just like davenbelle. Coincidentaly the other two rfas are people who I know about. Of that MegamanZero is the person that told Davenbelle to stop stalking (See User Talk:Davenbelle). The other RfA you participated was for Khoikhoi who at the time in dispute with me. Lets call all that circumstential evidence and discard them.
    • You have participated in a total of 8 deletion votes. 5 of them opposing me, 2 of them opposing megamanzero. So thats 7 out of 8 deletion votes we have in common. Again lets call that circumstential evidence and discard it.
    • There is this hole case of you and megaman zero. You were complaining about something megaman zero recieved from davenbelle. MegamanZero at a point modifed the bycycle award to an exceptional newbie award long ago at 10:50, 18 January 2006. I Had to dig through the userpage history to discover the actual modification of the award and I knew what I was looking for.
      1. So we have an award given to MegamanZero by davenbelle.
      2. We have MegamanZero warning davenbelle to stop stalking me on a much later date. (a motive for davenbelle to seek "revenge") as MegamanZero and I had been close and still are close.
      3. We have megaman zero modifying the given award in 12 january (hey he can its his userpage)
      4. We have you detecting and "correcting" it on 25 february.
      5. We know you never met megamanzero on any article, meaning you didnt know him.
      So among 47,984,284 registered users, you found Megaman Zero at random. You also discovered "forgery" of an award on his userpage which required me to load a dozen diffs even though I knew what I was looking for.
    • You make edits such as this or this. While to an untrained eye it is a simple vandalism reversion. Davenbelle was also very interested in the contravercy surrounding the Southeastern Anatolia Project ([38]), an article I mostly wrote. Among 6,884,255 we meet on the same article as davenbelle edited on the same section.
    • We also have you removing/objecting a copyright issue I posted concerning a letter and the Armenian Genocide [39]. It spikes my curiosity how on earth have you noticed that post? And if you are so concerned about copyrights why havent you ever commmented on another copyright issue?
    • I noticed recently. So you have randomly discovered an edit of mine and since it is a redirect that is among 4,190,567 pages. You have reverted an edit of mine from 04:20, 12 April 2006.
    You are complaining about me creating a hostile enviorment... How productive is you complaining about megaman zeros award? How would you describe your attitude?
    Coincidences? Sure. A striking question is why would a user who had only edited articles about the novel featuring the whale Moby Dick suddenly start to edit articles related to Kurds, Armenians, and Turkey practicaly opposing me on every opertunity?
    I said I wouldnt come up with the conclusions and I wont, however if davenbelle made edits like yours... he would be considered stalking in my view.
    --Cat out 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and before I forget comments such as the one below create a hostile environment. Not just that, it is also very incivil.
    As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.
    Wikipedia prizes itself for its coverage on topics such as hard science as well as video games and Anime episode descriptions. Founder of wikipedia had made his view on this issue quite clear.
    --Cat out 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I, for one, consider an ethnic group of twenty-odd million people to be a bit more encyclopaedic than a bunch of doe-eyed adolescent cartoon characters. --Moby 10:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You think I'm stalking you? I want nothing more than to be rid of you. You are the one who seems to have studied every edit I've made, and who will spin any yarn it takes to minimise Kurdish coverage. --Moby 10:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not blame me for 'exposing' you monitoring my edits. I merely reviewed your contributions. I never accused you of stalking, I told everyone I wont be making the conclusions.
    First step of any kind of investigation is to determine a motive. Based on your statement you confirm that your intentions are simply 'to get rid of me'. Thats not exactly an example of a friendly enviorment. Davenbelle was also pretty desperate to get rid of me.
    --Cat out 02:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please to not misrepresent what I said. I said that I wanted to be rid of you not that I wanted to get rid of [you]. The meaning of what I said is that I do not want you opposing everything I or others try and achieve on articles and categories related to Kurds; you spun it so that it sounds like I want to put you in a river. --Moby 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cool Cat has problems with Kurds and Kurdistan. I remember reading a comment by User:Cool Cat stating how Kurds had a president in Turkey and what else could they want. I've asked the user politely to stop contributing on the PKK article because this user had a political point of view. But told me I couldn't ask him this. Ozgur Gerilla 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There were a lot of hate around here

    Like written, it seems no one have the right to write anything about Kurds, If you write anything about Kurds even with references it´s propaganda or bullshit by somepeople, this is not the Wikipedia I want it become a member of. If some people get as they wished I can say here and now that everything relaeted to Kurds is gonna be deleted.

    OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm far from considered anti-Kurdish, but I looked at one of your edits and I found it problematic. El_C 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User is a suspected sockpuppet and probably should be blocked indefinately. [40] --Cat out 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, can anyone attend to this case during my absence? [note that I only managed to rather superficially touch on some of the issues in Ebdulrehman Qasimlo]. Thanks in advance. El_C 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A break? [Threateningly] I hope you mean the honeymoon! Bishonen | talk 00:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm a bit too bruised from my fall for that (I'll see if I can get around to taking some pics of my injuries) and will need to rest my soar body, not to mention my fragile and now drugged-out mind. But the Dr says that in a week I should be as good as new! El_C 01:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! :-( Bishonen | talk 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Re: User: Anwar saadat

    Hello, I am User: Benzee. I think I have been wrongly requested for sockpuppetry usage. I am not sure but he has been vandalising my page with Image copyright messages Like This after deleting the copyrights himself Proof. He has also vandalized pages such as Vijay's article. Since his only plan is to do vandalism, I suggest you block him for atleat 1 week or 1 month so he can let other wikipedians get on in their wiki careers as well as persoanl. He is targeting me for no apparent reason and no, I am not a sockpuppet of User: Naan Kadavul, my contributions are worthy and I am personally concentrating on reaching a separate wikipedia landmark. Keep up your good work adminstrators! Thanking You Benzee 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) May the force be with you![reply]

    There does seem to be problematic edits of a recent nature. Also, somehow I originally mistook this to be about the article Anwar Sadat. El_C 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, please have a look at Talk:Ajith and Ajith. He is running a one-man blockade against User:Zora, User:Ganeshk, User:David crawshaw, and User:Blnguyen (myself) for removing blatant POV such as the constant use of "!", "mega-star" and "mega-hit" the usage of a magazine review term "Numero Uno" as a fact rather than endorsement, a whole list of random vague assertions, and threatened to report us for vandalism and trolling (it's a POV dispute). User:Pa7, User:Plumcouch, User:Srikeit and User:Nobleeagle have all agreed on the page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema that Anwar is trying to run a hagiography. He then reverted Pakistan (User:Dwaipayanc) and Hindutva (Nobleeagle) citing "vandalism" in the edit summary, when it is about the POV of the content. In one edit summary at Ajith, he wrote an edit summary in Tamil, meaning "shut up" - see translation at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I left the user a note about civility and hagiographical concerns. El_C 08:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had problems with that Anwar saadat user as well. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, can anyone attend to this case during my absence? Thanks in advance. El_C 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Prin/Benzee/Naan_Kadavul confirmed as a sock on WP:RFCU. Note that all of the accounts have been chronic copyvioers. --Rory096 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    en.wikipedia mentioned on FOX NEWS

    described us as a 'joke' and 'left wing propaganda tool' that 'anyone with a modem' can use to 'rewrite history'! yay, expect more hit and run vandalism in the near future, how nice of them--152.163.100.65 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm concerned, especially considering Fox News's demographic. Before you know it, we're illegal! D': —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fox News knows a thing or two about rewriting history. Remember - Media-matters did a poll and found Fox viewers were less informed about current events than people who don't watch/read the news at all. Raul654 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone knows that The Daily Show viewers are the most informed! On topic though, during which show/who said it? Kotepho 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hysterical... do you have a link for that? Snoutwood (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wrong about the survey source - it was U. Maryland's PIPA, not media-matters. Here are the links: [41][42][43] Raul654 01:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    If someone would upload a clip of this to Youtube or Google, it would prolly be interesting. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it really necessary for them to give us such negative publicity?Ready to RRR 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Fox doesn't know about NPOV. They seem to think something is either good or evil, not much gray area. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a new idea that is non-standard and as far as they are concerned that is a bad thing. JoshuaZ 01:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course, there's a grain of truth in their criticism. We do have a slight leftist systemic bias, in my opinion. And anyone with a modem can use us to rewrite history, and people do, leftwingers and rightwingers, though thankfully in most cases it doesn't stay around. I don't think it's reasonable to expect never to receive any bad press, and to ask FOX to refrain from giving it to us amounts to censorship. Let's just get used to and admit to our limitations. Then the bad press will be water off a ducks back, and we can get back to doing the best we can to overcome those limitations and writing our encyclopedia. -lethe talk + 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please... Fox News criticizing us for being biased (or for that matter, for Fox News to critize *anyone* for being biased) is hypocritical in the extreme. This is the same network FAIR labeled "The Most Biased Name in News" [44] Raul654 02:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad hominem, tu quoque? --149.142.243.29 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does someone else want to start chanting, "THE NO SPIN ZONE", or should I? --InShaneee 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    slight systemic bias? In any case, was this in a news program or one of the talking head opinion shows like O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes? If the latter, then stop hyperventilating and go about your business. No one expects Lou Dobbs or Nancy Grace or Chris Matthews to be NPOV so why do people act all shocked when a Fox host expresses an opinion on his or her opinion show? Thatcher131 03:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did anyone over at Fox News happen to notice that Jimbo's own political views happen to coincide with their own? He's often described himself in the past as a libertarian (& has been very explicit that it is spelled with a small "L") -- which only makes their own bias all the more comical. Or maybe some of our left-of-center members dragged him off to a re-education camp when the rest of us weren't looking & made him see the errors of his ways. ;-) -- llywrch 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought objectivists hated libertarians? --Rory096 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is competition to the media outlets. When a breaking story hits, some people that used to go to a media website or TV for details may now go to us for details. I suspect media outlets on all points of the political spectrum see us as competion, and therefore as a good target to be attacked. I doubt their political POV has much to do with their basic attitude about Wikipedia. NoSeptember talk

    Wikipedia has a left wing bias? I wish some of those left-wingers would pay attention to the Adolf Hitler article!. Fox News certainly has no cause to complain about that article! They would probably say it is accurate, fair and balanced! Drogo Underburrow 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dont be hard on fox news. They have every right to complain about us. We make their job much much harder with our content. How can you push bias when you have a rival with reliable source of information? Unlike Fox news we dont claim to be neutral. We however seek neutrality again unlike fox news. --Cat out 08:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "And reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Steven Colbert, Seabhcán 09:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Alienus

    The above user posted an unblock notice over 36 hours ago - could someone please review his talk page and comment on the block. Thanks Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 09:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a one week block might be a bit harsh, but I do agree that his comment was uncivil, and immediatly coming off his last block. --InShaneee 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alienus is not on any sort of civility probation. He has apologised and it has been accepted. At the moment the block seems to be being enforced because he won't admit he intended to offend. He claims it was a badly worded edit summary that did not clearly make the point that Jakew does not agree with his view on Circumcision. At the moment he is being punished for not saying what others want to hear regardless of the truth. "Harsh" does not even begin to cover the problems this raises. SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to get right down to it, the fact is that Alienus is well aware of these policies, yet he keeps violating them. While I question the length of the block, there is no doubt in my mind that a block was the proper course of action. --InShaneee 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sophia, he tried to insert POV in an article, ignored my Talk:Mutilation explanation of why this was unacceptable (which was stated in general terms, and did not refer to my anatomy) and reverted, with the edit summary "rv whitewashing; the foreskin is functional, except in the case of Jakew's". In doing so, he a) assumed bad faith ('whitewashing'), in spite of a perfectly reasonable explanation of the policy problems with his edit, b) took a general issue and misrepresented it as a discussion about my body, and c) even if was not intended as a personal attack, it is wholly inappropriate to comment on another editor's genitals in an edit summary. He has apologised but admits no wrongdoing.
    The problem is not of what others want to hear, but the fact that the atmosphere is poisoned by such behaviour, and if he can't understand that, then one can only ask whether a week is enough. Jakew 21:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you discussed this with Jayjg? I didn't see anything about it on his talk page. Snoutwood (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked Jayjg to log the block himself as he has been in conflict with Alienus on related pages and therefore is not an uninvolved admin. He did not think it was necessary and has not done sp but in cases such as this PI needs to be respected. SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I'm asking if you discussed it with him. He's the blocking admin, so he should be your first point of contact. Snoutwood (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked on his talk page [45] and he replied on mine [46]. I logged it here as I do think it needs to be discussed elsewhere so that other uninvolved admins can review the block. Am I the only person here who thinks a personally involved admin should ask for external input when placing a contested block? SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been a lengthy discussion of this on Alienus's talk page, of which you are fully aware, since you have participated in it. As well, I am not a "personally involved admin", since I neither edited the article in question, nor was the personal attack directed at me, and I have indeed followed process. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alienus does make a lot of personal attacks, and made his recent one on the very day he returned from a one-week block. He has already been blocked eight times by seven different admins for editing warring and violations of NPA. At some point, the lesson has to start sinking in. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. If the community feels a user who is trying to reform and made what he contests is a genuine mistake deserves a one week block then there is nothing more to add. To me the test of integrity of a system is how it deals with the least liked people which is why I have been following this one through. I will state that I think this decision is based on personality rather than facts and will ask how we are to encourage editors to behave civilly if the punishment for an offence is the same as for a mistake? SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which begs the question: if this happens so many times, is it still a mistake? Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alienus has been blocked once previously for incivility which he did not deny - does this exclude him from AGF? SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The record does not support Jayjg's claim that he is not a "personally involved admin". Alienus reverted Jayjg's edits to the Circumcision advocacy article at 05:54 on 6 May 2006 [47] Then Jakew reverted the article to Jayjg's version three times. Jayjg blocked Alienus at 07:21 on 7 May 2006. [48] There have been other differences on opinion between Alienus and Jayjg in the past regarding the content of circumcision related articles. -- DanBlackham 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for checking that but I don't think anyone but us actually cares. Sad huh? SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, someone else got into an edit conflict with Alienus on a different article, about a different issue, and somehow that makes me "personally involved"? Please return to reality. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alienus earned his block with his behavior. Jayjg's involvement, if any, does not change that fact. To clarify the matter I've unblocked Alienus and reblocked him myself. -Will Beback 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not looked at the history of all the circumcision-related articles that Jayjg and Alienus may or may not have edited together, but have looked briefly at the history of the one that DanBlackham cited. I can't say that I consider the fact that Alienus reverted Jayjg's 2 May contributions on 6 May makes Jayjg an "involved admin". In fact, Jayjg did not revert back to his own version; he did not contribute to an edit war. Being on the opposite side on some issues is not the same as being involved in a personal dispute. I see here that Jayjg voted the same way as Alienus on article content, and the opposite way from me. Actually, I can't recall ever being on the same side as Jayjg on article content, but don't feel that there's any reason why I couldn't block him (or he me) for personal attacks in the (extremely) unlikely event that it proved to be necessary.
    So are they involved in a personal dispute, independently of Alienus's 6 May revert? If I look at Alienus's contributions, I see a lot of attacks against various administrators, Jayjg being only one of his targets (and certainly not the main one). I see no evidence of Jayjg responding in kind, or indeed of taking any notice. We have had problems in the past with aggressive users insulting so many admins that they were able to claim that no admin who wanted to block them was neutral. In fact, I recall one user (now banned) who requested arbitration against an admin who had blocked him for really vile personal attacks against another admin, and who announced that two of the arbitrators would have to recuse themselves because he had had run-ins with them. One of the arbitrators accepted the case with the words: "Accept (Picking a fight with an arbitrator doesn't result in recusal)". Back to Alienus, if we take these three diffs, do we now say that Jareth may never block Alienus in the future? I personally would not feel comfortable blocking Alienus: I think he has been in dispute with me far more than with Jayjg. But I do feel that once an editor has been rude to more than five administrators, the X-isn't-allowed-to-block-me-because-he-has-a-grudge-against-me argument becomes less and less convincing. AnnH ♫ 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The blocking policy is clear that: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Jayjg did not gain an advantage in a content dispute, and there's no question that Alienus made a personal attack on the very day that he returned from a week's block for personal attacks, so there's no reason to question this block that I can see. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Captain scarlet

    This user keeps reverting other users at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, insisting on using British English usage and spelling. In particular, he insists that we should use the word "transport" instead of "transportation", because supposedly the word "transportation" is American English. I already explained to him on his talk page that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style clearly stated that "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change", but it was to no avail. He has deleted my message on his talk page, but you can find it here ([49]). You can also notice that Captain Scarlet created on his user page a special language tag that I am reproducing here:

    AmE-0 This user does not understand the American English language and bloody well doesn't want to.

    Other incidents involving Captain Scarlet were already reported, but they were archived without explanation. You can find the archived incidents here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive94#User:Captain scarlet. Hardouin 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This naming incident is a misguided attempt. Tranportation was not changed to British English but brought in line with the article for transport Transport in France. It makes sence to have all articles refering to transportation in France to match the national article. I have been unable to have Hardouin see the importance of consistency throughout french articles in this matter. All messages from Hardouin have been kept and archived. The language template has been on Wikipedia for months and I am not its creator, the template was deleted (see Template:User_AmE-0, where its history is protected). Regards, Captain scarlet 13:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Without wanting to get involved in the dispute: the Manual of Style says that "[if] there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." There is no official French dialect of English, so "the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used." The first significant contributor was Hardouin (talk · contribs) here. If you wish to see the wording changed to match the main relevant category, Captain scarlet, argue for it on the article's talk page. But there is nothing at this point in the wikipedia namespace policies and guidelines to mandate your change, and edit warring certainly doesn't help. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (note: I am not saying that the section can never be called Transport, I'm saying that this is not the way to achieve such a change.)[reply]

    This article is on a place in France, so European English (British English) should be used according to the Manual of Style. —Ruud 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Koot, but I don't think that's accurate. The Manual of Style doesn't mention any sort of British dominion over articles pertaining to European topics. It's my recollection that the British ultimately lost the 100 Years War, so articles about French topics aren't held to either British or American English. JDoorjam Talk 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two editors above me are right: there is no such mention in the Manual of Style. In fact, the only mention that comes remotely close to Europe is this: "Article on European Union institutions: British, Irish and Maltese English usage and spelling". In other words: wikipedia has no preference for British English over other dialects of English when it comes to Europe. The only thing in the Manual of Style that applies here is that "the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used." The first significant contributor is Hardouin, and he/she used Transportation. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems there was some discussion last week on clarifying the MoS on this point: Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style#EU. I made the same inference as Woodstone did in that discussion: the article is related to France and, if the situation is similar to that in the Netherlands, the French are thaught British English at school. That said, this edit war exceeds the usual lameness of spelling wars. —Ruud 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh. Another candidate for a job at the soup kitchen. The key is consistency within an article. Beyond that, the status quo has an advantage over any change. Anyone changing for pigheaded, chauvanistic reasons is no better than a vandal. If a person is changing not to correct mistakes in information, not to aid in coherence, but rather because he or she is a bigot about his own nation or a visionary who wants to assume what other nations should write like. What is the difference between someone rewriting an article that is consistent and clear to reflect his personal fetish for language and someone doing so to reflect his personal political views? Both are changes that do not aid anyone but the editor, and that's not what we're here for. Geogre 23:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because I have nothing better to do...okay, that's a lie, but I couldn't help myself. From Google:

    • 1,810,000 for behaviour site:.fr
    • 1,600,000 for behavior site:.fr
    • 11,700,000 for licence site:.fr
    • 6,170,000 for license site:.fr
    • 84,500 for petrol site:.fr
    • 44,000 for gasoline site:.fr
    • 31,500 for "different to" site:.fr
    • 509,000 for "different from" site:.fr.
    • 44 for "estate wagon" site:.fr
    • 26,300 for "station wagon" site:.fr
    • 449 for rubber tyre site:.fr
    • 10,100 for rubber tire site:.fr
    • 60,000 for lorry site:.fr
    • 367,000 for truck site:.fr

    I'm not seeing a whole lot of dominance by any particular variety of English, based on this rough survey. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you take into account that "licence" and "tire" are also French words? This thwarted my attempt to see if the French prefer American over British humo(u)r. —Ruud 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but it might explain the bulges in their results. And since the French love Jerry Lewis, clearly the French prefer American over British humo(u)r. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for changing Transportation to Transport had nothing to do with changing American to English but to appky consistency between Transport in France to a section of transport in France, as state in all of my edit summaries. Replying to Calton and as a parenthesis, English is taught in France rather than American, I'd know. The above debate if off topic since the reason for changing the chapter header was not the reason stated by Hardouin as seen in my edit summaries. It is though likely that I will report Hardouin on other matters of vandalism and unwillingness to cooperate with other editors, myself and others. Regards Captain scarlet 16:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User removing warnings from talk page

    Could someone look into User:Jachin and talk page history? He appears to be selectively removing personal attack warnings and the like from his talk page (see [50]). I've been steadily ignored so far, and I'd like another admin to look into it. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also User:Zzzzz. I noticed him using popups to revert good faith edits, and asked him politely a couple of times [51] [52] to stop (as did User:Titoxd [53]). Zzzzz archived his talk page without the warnings on it [54]. I then told him to stop [55], and was reverted [56], upon which I gave him a warning [57], and was reverted again [58], along with a comment from User:Worldtraveller [59]. I know that Zzzzz is a good contributor, and I'm not sure what to do at this point. TheJabberwʘck 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Zzzzz has removed messages placed by User:141.133.153.2 and User:InShaneee [60]. TheJabberwʘck 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems to be archiving them now, immediately moving them over to his archives, which while slightly annoying does not seem serious enough an issue for admin intervention. JoshuaZ 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my note to him I suggested he archive, at least it's better then having him delete them. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, he's selectively archiving to edit out any warning messages or message about disputes he's been involved in even after many polite messages (which he's also removing)[61][62] . Archiving is just fine, even if it is immediate but selectively removing warnings and discussion? Not quite kosher either. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, user:Pcbcbc used to do that. It eventually got to be a very serious problem. It isn't illicit, but it's sure misleading. Geogre 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He's now placed a message on his talk page stating "NOTICE: Messages placed on this page are deleted at my discretion." I definatly agree now that this is the start of something problematic. He should know that warnings should not be deleted so off-the-cuff, as it makes it very hard to judge whether the user's been warned previously. --InShaneee 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Prometheuspan 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, now that gives me an idea! (bad faith gaming of the NA policy in the first place.) Prometheuspan 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a comment - if we want to continue making an issue of 'removal of warnings' then it should be written into the policies. Currently this view is founded on WP:VAND, which says only that removing vandalism warnings is considered vandalism, and WP:TALK which says that removing messages without responding may be considered "hostile" or 'uncivil'... but that restoring such removed messages is "not proper" and edit warring. That's pretty weak grounds on which to base a claim that 'all warnings must be retained'... it actually makes the repeated restoration of such (as has been done) a blockable offense.
    That said - I'm not a big fan of this approach. Nobody likes 'being scolded' and then being told that you have to keep the 'scarlet letter' on your talk page in perpetuity? It looks like, and sometimes is, harrassment. They've been warned. They saw the message. Mission accomplished. Forcing them to keep warnings on their talk page for every visitor on completely unrelated issues to see is unneccessarily punitive. The only 'plus' from such is to allow admins to see that the person has received prior warnings, but I don't think that's worth antagonizing people further. We can always check the history... use edit summaries like 'Warning: <whatever>' and they'll be easy to pick out. --CBDunkerson 11:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone is pressed for specific links to policy on the matter, here are three: Help:Talk_page#Etiquette, Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism under "removing warnings". Stifle (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, this is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that someone has been out at the barn wall with a can of paint again. Setting aside that it's usually a good idea to make the proposal before changing policy pages... this is still just a proposal. Which I (amongst others) strongly disagree with. The minor benefit of 'making it easier to see that the user has been warned before' is far outweighed by the negative effects of the antagonism inherent in the proposed procedure. Warnings ought to be friendly reminders or notifications of 'the rules' rather than scarlet letters used to humiliate people. There is no epidemic of people getting away with repeated policy violations because no one notices that they have done it before... and thus no need for this policy change. We have plenty of tools for keeping track of 'troublemakers' currently without needing to add one which causes more problems than it solves. --CBDunkerson 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a big difference between having to retain scarlet letters and immediately transferring selectively to archives. The question is whether we're talking about normal talk page behavior and an overt intent to mislead. It's a judgment call. Until the issue that generates the "warnings" gets up to RFC or mediation level, the transferring to archives is just a symptom. Once there is an RFC or RFar or Mediation attempt, I would say that those assessing behavior should see the transferring to archives and assess whether or not it is a piece of evidence. For me, it would be a heavily weighted piece of evidence of an intent to operate outside of consensus and against policy, whether the archiving were itself an offense or not. Geogre 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jachin's reply is here. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    metric first or Imperial first

    ThurnerRupert (talk · contribs) has begun making what appears to be unilateral changes to {{standard gauge}}, which is one of the templates used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains to present the information in a standard format. His complaint is that the metric units should always be listed first regardless of the source document or subject matter. I have commented on his talk page and tried to engage him in conversation on the project talk page to come to a consensus. I have reverted {{standard gauge}} once on May 7 and once today, and I am requesting a review for page protection of the template until a consensus can be reached in the project. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Uniformity and consistency on a volunteer project the size of Wikipedia is a pointless and, in the end, self-destructive aspiration. Find something more important to argue about. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Tony in reality, but I must say that, if the world were perfect, everything would be in Metric. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I put metric first, sometimes only metric, in the earliest articles I created, but somebody else started changing them to English first, so I've been using English units since. -- Kjkolb 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Imperial should be first for article relating to places where imperial is or was used. If Metric was to be first, then a 4ft 8inch template (similar to the other feet wide rail lines) ought to be created to cater for both parties. Captain scarlet 09:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue was also recently discussed at Category talk:Conversion templates. There are some valid arguments for not always being consistent with this. If an approximate measurement of '5,000 miles' is given it doesn't really make sense to show that as; 8046.72 km or with the metric first followed by the imperial... the non-round number and decimals give the impression of an exact measurement instead of an approximant. If a measurement was originally taken in 'cubits' it would be misleading to pick one of the common estimates of that length and display the measurement in metric/imperial. Basically, the measurement given in a source should probably be shown first or even alone in some cases. That said, if it is a straightforward constant that can accurately be displayed in different units then I think metric first followed by imperial strikes the best balance between international and local standards. The category above has templates for performing these conversions now (I used {{subst:conv-dist|5000|mi|km|3}} to produce the kilometer conversion above) so it should be fairly easy to include both types of units where appropriate and put them in whatever order makes sense. With the train gauge... I believe the original standard was set in imperial units and thus I'd think that would be the proper measurement to show first, but it probably doesn't matter much so long as both are given. --CBDunkerson 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, the original measurement or definition should be first and any conversions second. In this case, since standard gauge was originally defined in the Imperial system, that measurement should go first. Conversions often lose accuracy and it's often good to know the original measurement system used in any case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Luka Jačov keeps deleting very important reference

    Hi,

    Luka Jačov keeps deleting very important reference on page Serbs of Croatia. I proved that they speak Serbian, not Serbo-croatian, and he keeps deleting the reference that proves this and reverting related changes I made in the article.

    Please, stop him!!! --Ante Perkovic

    Brent Corrigan

    Can some admins please put this page on their watchlists? It has a rather determined vandal. SchmuckyTheCat 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More information: User:Melbedewy appears to be including copyvio information to this article from several different IPs at will. Indeed, the user claims "I am now going to post the complete article EVERY SINGLE DAY in the text. Don't bother with your whining, I will not respond to you any further. If they ban me I will set up new hotmail accounts in 1 minute flat. I do not have a static IP number so you will not win.". Obviously, blocking won't do any good, and this page already already was protected, then undone after two weeks. I have re-protected pending further review. RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a good call to me. Best way to prevent mass vandalism is to head it off at the pass. --InShaneee 03:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has requested that the article be unlocked "and that the censored information about the public federal court case Cobra video vs. Brent Corrigan be permanently locked in to end future vandalism." Here is my response. (The link to that story already is in the article—twice.) RadioKirk talk to me 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked User:Mccready for Wikistalking

    User:Mccready has been Wikistalking and generally harassing User:SlimVirgin. He originally got into some dispute with SlimVirgin over the Animal rights article, adding that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family! [63] When challenged over that, he decided to rewrite the consensus intro instead, and when SlimVirgin reverted, he threatened to open an RfC on her, and proceeded to revert every day while issuing a second warning and third warning, accompanied by more threats on the talk page. He then complained about her on WP:AN/I, [64] because inter alia she had "introduced her views on Israel into the animal-rights page" by referring to the State of Israel, and had violated 3RR by reverting four times in 60 hours. [65] [66] She requested protection for Animal rights, which left him with nothing to fight about, so over the course of the next few days he stalked her to Lauren Slater [67] (which she was working on and he had never edited); New anti-Semitism [68] (which she was working on and he had never edited); and Rat Park [69] (which she'd created and he had never edited). He then noticed she'd reported Gene Nygaard for a 3RR violation, so he stalked her to the WP:AN/3RR page and reported her for a violation which she had already rectified. [70] At this point I warned him that he needed to desist from Wikistalking her: [71] He stopped wikistalking her, but continued to make frivolous complaints about her on this page (e.g. [72] [73]) As she refused to rise to his bait, after several days he decided to again wikistalk her to a new article, Hamas, which she was editing extensively (including a couple of hours earlier) and which he had never edited before: [74] At this point I blocked him for 24 hours for Wikistalking, which is forbidden by policy. He has objected to this block, as has one other editor. Wikipedia has over 1 million articles; Mccready has no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just recently edited. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Like we didn't see this coming... Wikistalking has been an ongoing problem with Mccready. He's had many warnings and none seem to have made an impression, so a block makes sense here. FeloniousMonk 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd rather see him blocked for something he actually did wrong. There were earlier complaints that look well justified, and he's been blocked before. But I cannot agree with a block simply for editing the same articles as someone else. The link presented as stalking evidence is a good, although minor, edit. If blocking is warranted, surely there will be a better example of blockworthy behavior forthcoming. Friday (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you want to call this wikistalking or disruption, I support a short cooling off for him. He's been acting out in similar ways for long enough that I've certainly noticed it. The issue isn't that he's making bad edits (necessarily, though some of them might be), it's that he's deliberately, purposefully inserting himself practically everywhere SlimVirgin edits, presumably as some form of payback for whatever his beef is with her. It's just not acceptable behavior. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it a horribly bad precedent to set that sensible edits can be considered wikistalking due to our speculation about bad motives behind it. I see reasonable behavior in his latest edits. If he was leaving edit summaries like "revert idiotic edit by >whoever<" or something, I would consider that strong evidence of stalking, but I don't see anything like that. If he was starting to get the hint, we're not helping by throwing another block at him. If he's going to be blocked for harmless edits, he cannot be an editor- he should be community banned instead. If a community ban is what's really going on here, let's be up front about it. All I see so far is people continuing to take him to task for which articles he's edited, and I find that unhelpful- it's only going to reinforce his belief that he's being unjustifiably picked on. Friday (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be considered speculation if they randomly turned up at the same articles. That's not what's happening here. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Friday (Mccready emailed me too, BTW). There is no justification whatsoever for blocking him for the edit on Hamas that Friday linked to. In my opinion, the reason why someone is editing a particular article is not important at all. If they're harassing someone and/or attacking them constantly, then I think they should be blocked (and banned and get their backsides kicked), but if 'wikistalking' means editing the same articles as someone else (as long as the 'stalker' is being civil), then I can't see a problem with it. - ulayiti (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To paraphrase User:JoshuaZ, it must be just a coincidence that Mccready is interested in animal rights, antisemitism, obscure psychology experiments, American authors, and now the Middle East, just like User:SlimVirgin, and in an even bigger coincidence he just happens to edit specific articles in those topic areas minutes after SlimVirgin does. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely right- there's no justification whatsoever for blocking him for the edit on Hamas that Friday linked to, but there is for wikistalking. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By Jayjg's own explanation here, the wikistalking was a few days ago. Then he stopped. The only evidence provided that he's been stalking again is that Hamas diff- which clearly shows a harmless edit, yet Jayjg still used it as justfication for a block. Are we punishing him for what he did a few days ago, or is there an ongoing problem here? I have yet to see any diff which shows evidence of an ongoing problem right now. Friday (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying "harmless edit" as if that makes a difference. The harm was in the stalking, not the edit. The ongoing problem right now is that he wikistalked SlimVirgin to yet another article. This needs to stop. Wikipedia has over a million articles; Mccready does not need to "just happen to edit" the ones that SlimVirgin has just been editing. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it harm anyone if they just happen to edit the same article as someone else? Is someone going to block me for wikistalking, say, JIP (talk · contribs), for editing some of the same articles as him just because we have some similar interests (eg Finland-related articles)? Maybe I could block Obli (talk · contribs) because he's edited both IB Diploma Programme and Extended Essay, both articles that I've created? Most articles are edited primarily by people who are interested in the subject, and people share similar interests. That is not 'wikistalking' And Hamas is also not exactly a particularly obscure article that nobody edits. (I might have edited that too, does that make me a wikistalker?)
    In my opinion, wikistalking can't be just editing the same articles. There has to be something else into it as well, like personal attacks, edit wars, systematic reversions or something like that. A minor grammatical change doesn't count as any of those. - ulayiti (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and Mccready says he's not doing it on purpose. What happened to assuming good faith? - ulayiti (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, AGF loses to Occam's razor. Thatcher131 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mccready emailed me about this. I half expected to find some kind of rouge admin abuse, and it was no surprise to find just that. He needs to stop it. I don't know the best way to achieve that, but this is a way. Just zis Guy you know? 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have much involvement in articles that SlimVirgin edits, but even I have noticed that Mcready was stalking her. I can understand Friday's point about setting a precedent by blocking someone for sensible edits that just happen to be on the same article that another editor has edited. But I think it could be even more dangerous not to be allowed to block for that. I've seen a lot of wiki-stalking since I arrived here, and on many occasions the stalker denied it — explaining that he had found the article by clicking "recent changes", or by following a link from another article, etc. Since this is something that we can never prove, a block seems quite appropriate when it's "beyond reasonable doubt". If someone stalks another editor ninety-nine times, and then makes an innocent edit on the hundredeth time, without realizing that his opponent has just edited it, well, he doesn't really have grounds to complain if he gets blocked, does he? I'm sure that finding that someone you've had a dispute with has just followed you to yet another article must be quite creepy and must sap a lot of the joy out of editing Wikipedia. We need to have the ability to put a stop to it, and if the block is an unfair one (which I don't think to be the case here), by all means let's review it at this noticeboard. AnnH ♫ 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "finding that someone you've had a dispute with has just followed you to yet another article must be quite creepy and must sap a lot of the joy out of editing Wikipedia. " This is my sentiment exactly; even if the edits are harmless, do you want someone hovering over your shoulder all the time? I support a short block, this is obviously not a coincidence. Thatcher131 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, and there's always an "explanation"; as I said above, as Mccready claims it must be just a coincidence that he is interested in animal rights, antisemitism, obscure psychology experiments, American authors, and now the Middle East, just like User:SlimVirgin, and in an even bigger coincidence he just happens to edit specific articles in those topic areas minutes after SlimVirgin does. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The crime of wikistalking is not editing the same articles as another editor, it is harassing them. Based on this editor's history, it is clear that user:Mccready has targetted user:SlimVirgin. That these edits, often minor, came after numerous complaints about SV shows an intent to harass or intimidate her. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all combat zone. Users more interested in fighting than editing should be blocked. -Will Beback 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is more to the story. User:Mccready followed User:SlimVirgin to my RFA FloNight's RfA (she nom me). He made negative comments about admins in general and me in particular. He also sent emails directing users to my RFA. User talk:Mccready#Emails? I believe my response to his actions was respectful and restrained. Going forward, I planned to ignore the incident until I received an email from him today. I found it troubling and needing a response from him. I left a message on his talk page giving him an opportunity to correct the problem. User talk:Mccready#Your email request is troubling I will discuss this further if needed. FloNight talk 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly the sort of behavior that's apparently continued until today. Jayjg warned Mccready that if he stalked SlimVirgin to one more article he'd be blocked. He did it again, therefore was blocked. Friday argues that Jayjg has essentially produced one edit and that can't be used to justify "stalking," and in another instance I'd probably agree. But this one edit was the one step over the line it took for a block (for which he was warned). It was bound to happen if he continued this behavior; good faith isn't limitless. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For fuck's sake, making an edit 3 hours after SlimVirgin is considered stalking? He removed 1 word. One word. Does he have to check every single article he copyedits to make sure SlimVirgin has never edited it? In case you folks are a bit behind on wikipolicy, let me quote it: "a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons." Looking at the diff, Mccready removed the word "out". Wow. What a disruptive edit. I bet it made SlimVirgin extremely distressed that Mccready removed this essential word.
    Maybe this is what happened: Mccready saw something about Hamas on the news, and decided to read the article. He thought the word "out" was out of place, so he went to edit it. I have done this exact same thing many times. Whenever I see something interesting in the news, I immediately go to Firefox and type in "wp [whatever]" to see if that news is in the article, and often I read it and I see something strange, I copyedit it. I don't go into the history to make sure that certain editors haven't edited it. That is simply unreasonable. Is that what you expected him to do there? Whether or not he meant it in bad faith, I don't know, but this isn't "zero tolerance", this is "negative tolerance". You folks were just looking for the perfect excuse to jump on him. Jayjg says that his edit occurred "within minutes" of SlimVirgin's edit; SlimVirgin's previous edit was a full 3 hours earlier than Mccready's. That's certainly not "within minutes", unless you are referring to the alternate definition of "minutes" - and I doubt you were making an issue out of Mccready's relative geographical location. – ugen64 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the third last article on her Recent Contributions list, and she'd edited the Talk: page 130 or so minutes earlier. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out Ugen64, unless you're trying to wilfully deny reality for some reason. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I urge you to opt for a less heated, more composed preamble, Ugen. I find this sort of tone to be clearly unproductive and that it does not contribute positively to the discussion. At any rate, it appears that this user largely focused on articles SlimVirgin edits in order to cause her grief, and that this has been going on for quite some time now. Thus, his edit history, and its specific pattern vis.a.vis SV's needs to be examined in its totality. With the final straw not being viewed in isolation but in the context of prior edits. El_C 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them:
    • he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [75];
    • threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [76] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [77]);
    • issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [78];
    • issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [79];
    • issues a "second warning" to me [80];
    • issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [81];
    • issues a "3rd warning" to me [82];
    • threatens to "report" Justen [83];
    • threatens to report Seth as a vandal [84];
    • Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [85] [86] [87]
    On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited. Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing, and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I got an email from McCready (who I'd never heard of before, apparently because I'm well respected- huh?!) to ask me to help him mediate against SV. Well, A quick look around the place suggests that I'd better not take up the request. Did anybody also get a mail from McCready to back him up at animal rights? For the record, the argument at Animal rights seems rather trivial in terms of content?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He emailed me as well. But the wording is more terse. Kimchi.sg 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He even e-mailed me to ask me to unblock him, which was bizarre given it was me he was following around. He did this over FloNight's adminship too: e-mailed a lot of people he didn't know in the hope of pulling in a few opposes. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been many "yes but" reasons given here. It's clear that there's no evidence that the diff Jayjg labelled as stalking is a disruptive edit. And many have said, "yes, but look at all the other bad things this user has done." What you're arguing for with these reasons is a community ban, people. It may even be time for such a measure, but it should be discussed honestly, not disguised as something else. This editor has been a nuisance, certainly- nobody is disputing that. What we're disputing (and I continue to strongly feel is a terrible precedent) is the idea that editing the same article as someone you don't like is wikistalking. This would be a ridiculous, unworkable standard. If he's going to be blocked for harmless edits, let's be honest and call it community ban- that's what it effectively is. Maybe I have unusually strong feelings on this, having been repeatedly accused of stalking myself (and the evidence presented was, "Look, you edited an article that I edited!"). Anyway, this whole argument could easily have been avoided by doing one simple thing:do not block people for made-up reasons if there are good reasons available. If there are no good reasons, don't block. I suspect there would have been far less disagreement if this had been presented as a general disruption block. The moral of the story is simple: When you block a user, leave a note on the talk page explaining why. The reasons given should be sufficiently explained that an uninvolved, impartial observer will agree that the block is justified. I would have expected that this standard would have been obvious to anyone who's been given the block button. Friday (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. And if 24 hour blocks for harmless edits are what he's going to continue to get, this is effectively a community ban. I'm just suggesting we be realistic and recognize it for what it is. If he's not going to be blocked again for harmless edits, that's another story of course. Friday (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No wikistalking edits are "harmless", because they damage the victim of the wikistalking, and all wikistalking edits must be discussed in the context of "all the other bad things this user has done", because wikistalking is a pattern of behavior. As for the claim of a "community ban", that's just nonsense; this was a 24 hour block for wikistalking, and, as has been pointed out many times before, there are over a million articles Mccready can edit, he has no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just edited. Finally, the block was indeed explained, and all sorts of uninvolved, impartial observers have agreeed that the block was entirely justified. The real moral here is that some people will deny reality regardless of the evidence. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we just have to agree to disagree. You're continuing to assert that [this edit was harmful to SlimVirgin. To me, this is such a bizarrely incomprehensible belief that I can only assume that your own prior involvement is impairing your ability to look at this situation neutrally. The reason I keep bringing up the community ban issue is just common sense: we have no article ownership here. If he's going to continue to be blocked for edits like that, he cannot be an editor. It's that simple. If we're deciding that he cannot be an editor, let's actually be honest about what we're deciding. Friday (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What explains the fact that most of the other people who have commented here also share this "bizzarely incomprehensible belief"? Do they also have a "prior involvement" which is "impairing [their] ability to look at this situation neutrally"? As for your other claim, it's equally nonsensical; I'll just repeat - there are over a million articles out there. All he needs to do is stop wikistalking SlimVirgin to the paltry few she has just edited. It is absurd to claim that this means he "cannot be an editor" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You put articles you edit on your watchlist, right? So how would you feel if every time you edited an article, it jumped to the top of your watchlist with the same name attached? The name of an editor who has argued with you, filed arguably false complaints and made threats against you. At the very least you say, "oh no, not again" and you have to check the diff because many (but not all) of his edits are disruptive. How would like to log on in the morning to see the five or six or ten articles at the top of your watchlist all with the same name on them. If that's not stalking, then tell me, how many more would it take? If you think this is going to turn into a series of blocks amounting to a community ban, you are conceding more about Mccready than you think you are. Thatcher131 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just had a couple comments and then hopefully I'll shut up. I'm not a fan of admins inventing new rules for users and enforcing them with blocks, but if it must be done, let's at least be reasonable about it. I know, "no wikistalking" isn't a new rule, but "no editing pages that user X has touched" is a new rule and should be treated as such. If it's actually true that Mccready can edit as long as he follows Jayjg's orders, what are those orders, exactly? Is he never to touch any article that Slim has ever touched? Or is there a certain timeframe involved? These are fairly extraordinary requirements; they should at least be spelled out, or he has no hope of being able to abide by the rules. I dislike such specific rules myself- I'd rather just base decisions on the actual edits, but there appear to be people who want rules along these lines. If orders are going to be invented and enforced, explaining this situation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mccready and on his talk page is probably a good idea. I have to admit I'm far more comfortable with editor-specific restrictions being imposed by the Arbcom than by just one admin. I apologize for posting so much here- it's possible I've been doing nothing but feeding the troll with my objections here, but I do feel it's important to nail down what is or is not wikistalking. Friday (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That may need to be done, but this isn't the proper place for it -- the wikistalking page is, or some other place such as that. Many, many people have commented here and agreed that what Mccready has been doing is harassing and disruptive, and his continuing lack of recognition of the reason why his behavior is being censured is just as disturbing. So in this instance I think the block was well justified. The straightforward direction Mccready can follow is simple: stop doing what you've been doing. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Friday, I know for a fact that you mean well, because you always do, and I respect what you say, but you've unfortunately hit the nail on the head with your "feeding the troll" observation. I hope you realize that he e-mailed a large number of people and told many of them, and perhaps all, that he was writing because he respected them so much, even though he doesn't know them. It's important to take a long, hard look at who's acting in good faith here. You're welcome to e-mail me if you'd like to discuss it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Undermining wikipedia foundations - new definition of wikistalking

    This block undermines wikipedia foundations. Read on and you’ll see the claim is not overblown.

    Jayjg’s accusation lacks substance and makes incorrect assumptions, particularly in regard to Gene Naagard. That a senior admin can jump to conclusions, accuse me of “baiting” and making “frivolous complaints” (they still haven’t been dealt with), and believe I should not edit articles which Slim has edited staggers me. Once again, there is no demonstration of harassment here despite requests to provide it. And this is where the foundations are being undermined. Jayjg and others want to stop me editing pages another person has edited. There is no examination of the quality of my edits, no examination of whether I have harassed. No. Only “you shall not edit pages which Slim regularly edits – if you do, we define that as wikistalking”. This is a serious attack on the principles of wikipedia.

    SlimVirgin’s version of history (above) needs commentary. My comments are interspersed:

    ::::I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them: + ::::*he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [88];

    Xtra said to me “You may see Joyce as an extremist, however, from the way you are talking, he appears far more to the centre than you….Or is free speech only reserved for left wing people? I am sick of this hypocracy (sic)…. I am sick of defending articles about normal people against morons ” Tell me Slim,is that a personal attack or is that a personal attack? Should Xtra apologise?

    + ::::*threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [89] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [90]);

    Steth (not Seth) had begun an unsuccessful and, I discovered, secret RfC against me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when I joined wikipedia there was a box at the top of WP:LEAD which said it was policy. That box no longer appears in the history because the history doesn’t store deleted templates. Like I say, I could be wrong. [91]. Also Slim’s link to me being told “numerous” times is one link on 9 May. Are there others Slim?

    + ::::*issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [92];

    David Nortman had reverted in bulk numerous times. Other editors had also asked him not to.

    + ::::*issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [93]; + ::::*issues a "second warning" to me [94]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [95]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to me [96];

    Ombudsman , like Slim, had reverted more than once and not used the talkpage despite repeated requests to do so

    + ::::*threatens to "report" Justen [97];

    What I said was “Justen you have reverted in bulk and will be reported if you do so again without properly considering all opinions calmly on the talk page”

    + ::::*threatens to report Seth as a vandal [98];

    What I said was “"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy.” Steth had waged a campaign to delete scientific findings from the article.

    + ::::*Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [99] [100] [101]

    Guilty as charged

    + ::::On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited.

    Do you seriously argue that I should not edit articles you edit?

    Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing,

    disappointing? What I said was (and it took a while to track down the correct link, Slim), “I think there are too many admins and I would like to see a code of conduct in place and enforced before new ones are created. Some admins are rude, revert legitimate comments by other editors, block pages they have edited and violate WP policies. My specific reasons for opposing include
    • She deleted comments and when asked on her talk page why, did not respond. [22]
    • She deleted legitimate comments from her talkpage without explanation[23]
    • Deleted more comments from her talkpage.[24]Mccready 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)”

    Flo responded and some of her response satisfied me, though not all

    + :::and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    I’ll let this one through to the keeper
    • Thank you Slim for finally removing from your list of my faults the gram-positive error I made and acknowledged as soon as it was discovered. I am still not happy that my legitimate criticisms of Slim have been removed from my user page and user talk, but hey ...
    • Blnguyen, you misquote me. You don’t mediate against someone. Tell me which of my six points on Animal Rights doesn’t belong. Yes it may appear trivial which is why I couldn’t understand SlimVirgin’s constant reverts and refusal to discuss. Your sarcasm does you no credit.
    • Yes I emailed admins; the blocking template suggests I do. Now I’m attacked for doing so. Come on people. Yes I emailed people who appear to bear a grudge, appealing them to look objectively at the facts. I am attacked again for doing that. It takes all types.
    • Thanks to those admins who supported me and stood up against groupthink, including those who did so via email. To the others may I ask you to consider that the definition of wikistalking MUST involve harassment; it is simply absurd to ban someone from editing a page when they have had disputes with a person who also edits that page – no matter how you ASSUME they arrived at the page (check SlimVirgin’s actions on chiropractic[102] – perhaps she didn’t know I was a regular editor there, and it was much more than a “tweak” – it sided against me in an ongoing controversy AND without her discussion on the talkpage). Jayjg’s comments on this would be particularly welcome. And to those who find my broad range of interests sarcastically “interesting”, yes the world still has polymaths, or as my father used to say “Jack of all trades, master of none,” and some of them, usually, enjoy editing free encyclopedias.
    • Given the good job done by AnnH ♫ 13:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC) on Timothy Usher’s block by Sean Black, I’m a bit disappointed she didn’t spend the same time on my case, though I understand how complex and boring it may be.
    • Thanks Friday for your comments. I am no troll. I had come to the same conclusion as you long before your post, as a look at my posts will show.
    • Finally, if I may be allowed a small rhetorical flourish, and in the light of those who continue to rely on assumption, this will go down in the annals of wikipedia: the day a user was blocked for removing, correctly, one redundant word from an article which had been edited three hours before (not minutes before as first hastily alleged) by the blocker’s friend who had refused discussion with that user.
    • AND May I or may I not make sensible edits, as I do, to pages Slim edits?

    Mccready 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You already have your stable of articles that you've wikistalked SlimVirgin to (Lauren Slater, Rat Park, etc.) Don't follow SlimVirgin to any new articles she's recently edited, and stop spamming this page. Jayjg (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And your reasoning? Are you saying you are banning me from making sensible edits in wikipedia if Slim has edited there previously? If so, by what authority? Please stop abusing me. My post was not spam. Mccready 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I really believe the best thing to do here is for both sides to just drop the issue and get on with life. Mccready, you feel you've been mistreated. I'm sorry for that. Some folks agree with you, some do not, and many feel your past bad behavior is a mitigating factor. This is how it goes here- editors get in disagreements. Part of being a functional editor is to move on and not dwell on the past. If you'll agree to edit like a functional editor, I hope the rest of us can agree to not punish you for making decent edits. For the record, this edit you made is perfectly fine, regardless of who has or has not edited that page before. Talking about article content is perfect- talking about other editors is less helpful. Friday (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Most folks here agree that the block was justified; a tiny minority of the dozens of people Mcready e-mailed do not. Mccready has not been "punished" for making "decent edits", he's been blocked for persistently wikistalking another editor, even after being warned to stop. There are over a million articles on Wikipedia, and Mccready does not need to make even "decent edits" to articles SlimVirgin has just edited, and which Mcready has never edited before. This will be my final statement on the subject; I will not respond to Mccready's lengthy misrepresentations and wikilawyering, nor will I respond to his or your strawman arguments; however, if he wikistalks SlimVirgin to some other article she has recently edited, I will certainly block him again (if someone else hasn't blocked him already). Jayjg (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. FeloniousMonk 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Friday. I hate to harp on, but the fundamental question which goes to the ethos of wikipedia remains open here. Does Jayjg have the right to ban me from making sensible good faith edits to articles Slim edits? If I do, will he block me again? Mccready

    I know I will, if Jayjg don't get to it first. You crossed the Rubicon for disruptive activity at the project long before this thread and your rant. FeloniousMonk 15:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I sound like a broken record, but what you guys are talking about is a community ban. If that's what you want, do it. But please don't keep picking on this guy. If he's trying to be a functional editor, he doesn't need people following him around saying "You did bad things last week!". If he's not trying to be a functional editor, this will become clear soon enough. Friday (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I said I wouldn't respond, but that was a bit too much. He is not being banned! There are a million articles on Wikipedia, he can edit all of them; he just needs to stay away from the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has recently edited. And no-one is "following him around" saying anything about him. Rather, he is following someone else around, and people are telling him to stop. These are two more fundamentally dishonest arguments, along the lines of the previous strawman argument you made that people were proposing that editors should blocked for making just one edit in isolation (rather, people correctly pointed out that that edit was the culmination of a long campaign of wikistalking and harassment), and the equally dishonest "it was a decent edit" red herring, since the issue was never the quality of the edit itself, but rather the circumstances surrounding it. Please do not use any of these fundamentally dishonest arguments again. Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, specific edits of Mccready's are red herring here. He was blocked for wikistalking, not editing. There are 1,129,346 articles at Wikipedia. All Mccready has to do is not show up at the 10 or so that SV is editing at at any given time and he's free to edit the other 1,129,336. It doesn't get any more simple than that. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcom defines wikistalking as INCLUDING harrassment. Three cases are listed. In one Jimbo said "Going around pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list" was unacceptable. Have I done that? No. In the second case the harasser placed unacceptable edit summaries "enfeebled minds", "Some professional standards, please!", "A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English", "Low quality of Irish editor". Have I done that? No. In the third case a group of editors "hounded" another editor, dogging his every step. Have I done that. No. I have edited articles I am interested in which Slim is also interested in. I have given reasons on my talkpage during my block and was met with sarcasm, not good faith, for my efforts.

    So do we have a new definition of wikistalking, devoid of harassment, invented by Jayjg? Sad for the project if true. I say again, this is fundamental to the wikepedia ethos. That Jayjg should fail to address the arguments is disappointing. Am I cast, horribly, in the mold of a Randian hero by Felonious’s insult that I rant? Have you examined my responses to Slim above, Felonious; if so which parts do you find unacceptable? Slim and I both edit many more articles than the few we intersect on. Does “tweak” to the lead, in the context on ongoing discussion on the talkpage, fit the new definition of wikistalking[103]? I find it sad if you really want to redefine wikistalking in this way and thereby redefine the ethos of the project. The argument that I can edit millions of other articles is unacceptable for the reasons already given. Mccready 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What constitutes harassment is in the eye of the victim not the accused. Certainly SV felt harassed. Give it a rest, stay off pages SV is editing, and stop disrupting the project and you have nothing to worry about. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't address the issues F. Do as I say or else? Whatever happened to logic, good faith, and the wikipedia ethos. Are we to have a new definition of harassment too? I feel harassed therefore I am? Mccready 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, give it a rest, stay off pages SV is editing, and stop disrupting the project. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Diligens blocked for 3RR

    I blocked Diligens (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for 3RR at Traditionalist Catholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), specifically for repeatedly re-inserting the term traditional Catholic, rather than traditionalist Catholic or Traditional Catholic, per ongoing discussions on the Talk page of that article. Diligens has also repeatedly removed warnings from his Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can go there and see that the admin JzG was the one in violation, but apparently because he was himself partisan in the discussion, he used his powers of blocking to make himself feel right. You don't even have to know the issues to see it there. My explanation fell on deaf ears and I got blocked. The article was in status quo when I came there on April 30th. The discussion was still going after 11 days and JzG edited the article ON THE VERY POINT OF DISPUTE, making a edit of what was well-accepted even all the way back to January. JzG, as an admin, does not know the simple rules and is abusing his powers as an admin. It is like a citizen who points a gun at a robber, and the police take away the citizen. Any admin should know that in an RV skirmish, the person who FIRST makes the violation, is the ONLY one who violates the 3RR rule, NOT the citizen who is RVING to correct the violation. I got blocked as that citizen. Incidentally, JzG put in an RFC at the beginning of that discussion. And his summary in the RFC shows that he didn't even understand what the objective of the discussion was about, which may be the reason why he later violated by editing the article out of step with the discussion. (Diligens 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    I count five reverts, violation of 3RR, endorse. A grammar change is not obvious vandalism Will (E@) T 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't a grammar change. There is no grammar or spelling book that supports it. The very edit was conceptual and the point of contention and no consensus was attained yet. Flaunted by admin. (Diligens 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    Phone number of Admin

    User:Jumphoop has posted the home telephone number of an admin that I have reverted. Can an admin please delete it from the history? - Ganeshk (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do people get admins phone numbers, it's really bizarre... Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins who aren't as close to the vest with their personal info as they should be, and Wikistalkers with too much time on their hands, probably... RadioKirk talk to me 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us have been online long enough that we've left an indelible digital trail. Before the Eternal September, my .plan had my name, phone, even my address, and it could be accessed by anyone who knew my email. I gave up any chance of anonymity a long time ago. It's just not an option for some of us. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And the people who have been online that long have a greatee tendacy to become admins.Geni 03:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue with Anomy User George Tames Article

    Hello, I'm having a issue with an Anomy User 195.93.60.66 [[104]] who keeps changing the categories in article George Tames. I have requested that he/she discuss here any changes or concerns regarding this article but he/she keeps ignoring all my Talk Requests. Any help here would be much appreciated, since I am trying to avoid an edit war with this individual. Thank you in advance. ~ Mallaccaos, 10 May, 2006

    The first thing to do is to assume good faith, and talk to the other user, they might have valid concerns and/or disagree with you. I think your inital comments to them were on the harsh side, it is not vandalism to have a dispute about content, and the edits didn't look complete nonsense to me. They might be incorrect, but even well meaning editors make mistakes. (Be careful not to fall into the trap of feeling you "own" an article that you create, as on that path lies chaos.) MartinRe 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the responds. My comments were not meant to be harsh sounding, I was just frustrated that he/she keeps making the changes without discussion them first when it was requested of him/her both at the George Tames discussion page and at the anomys user's discussion board. It seems this individual is specifically taking out the Greek-American category for some reason without saying why, even when there is a link provided which shows George Tames claiming he comes from a Greek and Albanian family. I have requested to the individual to discuss his/her edits several times and never got a response back. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006
    If discussion with the other editor is not improving the situation, look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other things to try, like getting a third opinion, and so on. These admin boards aren't the place to come for content dispute, as outlined at the top of this page. Regards, MartinRe 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my whole issue, I can't get the editor to discuss the situation, which is why I came here. I just didn't want an edit war to get out of hand with this situation. Thank you for pointing me to the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other things to try. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006
    There is no requirement to discuss before making changes, Be Bold! is our motto! I still suggest asking the user politely about their edits, accusing someone of vandalism in your first message to them isn't exactly going to make them want to reply! Ask them calmly about their edits, point out where you differ in opinion, and see what happens, it's way too early for dispute resolution when you haven't tried talking calmly to the other editor yet. Please remember to assume good faith and always be civil. Regards, MartinRe 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that there is no requirement to discuss before making changes. I want to discuss with the individual why he/she is making the same exact changes which he/she is doing but the individual has so far ignored all request for a discussion. I have taken in consideration the assume good faith and have apologized to this individual if he/she took my first comments as too harsh and have requested for a civil discussion here. Hopefully this can be resovled without any more issues. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006
    That's great, thanks. Hope it works out, and remember if there are further content disputes, please refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes as that's the best way to proceed. (posting here for content disputes will simply refer you to there anyway :) Regards, MartinRe 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin (Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs)) (Snowspinner) first participated in an AfD then deleted the AfD outright

    Hi folks. If this is no big deal, please excuse the interruption. However, it's my understanding that one general rule-of-thumb is that admins should not delete or otherwise 'administer' pages on which they have contributed substantively as editors. Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) has just done so, on an AfD brought by a user. Phil voted 'speedy keep', another admin marked it as a 'speedy keep', and then Phil deleted the AfD. I'd like to get the response of some admins (from a policy perspective, not a 'Phil under attack' perspective) to whether such activity in essence amounts to unfair or excessive use of an admin's powers during the course of their routine editing of Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I cannot provide a link to the now-deleted AfD page (it was here), but here's a link to the talk page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the article that was nominated for deletion, 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities, and it looks like a whole bunch of people all marked it "speedy keep"; the person who listed it was User:Ham_and_jelly_butter, who has been indefinitely blocked. He also listed George W. Bush for deletion. I'll back up Phil on this one: I would have done the same thing he did. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This nomination was a violation of WP:POINT and was rightfully speedy kept. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's two admins who back Phil so far. Thanks for your opinions, admin folks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy keeping the article is one thing. But what about deleting the AfD? Isn't it important to have a record that the article was AfD'ed and speedily kept? -- noosphere 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing it is a record of is the rejection of a bad faith nom by an indefinitely blocked vandal. Not valuable in the least imo. Arkon 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is valuable as a record of the community's will that the page not be deleted. -- noosphere 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a good speedy keep. I agree with Phil's practice of deleting the bad faith nomination, though the obvious benefits of doing so in a case like this somehow hadn't occurred to me before. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Too bad we can't nominate notices for 'Bad Faith' deletes. --Tbeatty 02:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or comments, for that matter. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was just the nomination that was deleted I'd have had no problem with it. But a number of editors had already voiced thier opposition to the AfD, and the AfD was closed as a speedy keep. It's the record of the rejection of the AfD that I value and object to being deleted. However, I will say this is not a huge deal for me. I just wish it hadn't been deleted and allowed to be kept to serve as a record of the rejection of the third AfD against this article. -- noosphere 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree completely had this been a real VFD. It was speedy kept because of who nominated it and how, in a very short time, by a very few people. I still see no value. Arkon 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting the Afd (created by a blocked user) would be valid under WP:CSD G5, and as the afd was "closed" as speedy keep/bad faith nom, it would seem reasonable (if not recommended) to delete the afd as well once the banning was discovered. (otherwise we could have a DOS attack by Afd noms :) MartinRe 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. If deleting the AfD was valid I have no more objections. Thanks for looking in to this. -- noosphere 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, folks, I agree, too, but it's nice to have some consideration of the AfD voters who aren't monitoring the block logs. It would be a little bit more than courteous to put a note on the AfD page, or the AfD Log page letting folks know that the nomination had been done by a blocked user. It would have prevented some confusion and potential offense. Geogre 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the history a little more carefully, it looks to me like he wasn't blocked until a few minutes after the voting ended (but a few minutes before the thing was deleted) ([105]). Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So he wasn't a blocked user when he started the AfD ? Does that mean that the AfD itself was not deletable per WP:CSD G5 after all? -- noosphere 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is customary to clean up the vandalism of a user you block for vandalism. I did so. My apologies for not leaving a better paper trail - my loathing for them continues to know few bounds. Phil Sandifer 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not technically have been a G5, but the nomination was clearly in bad faith. To prevent trolling, these things should be deleted--otherwise, a vandal could nominate any article for deletion and say "But your policy says you have to keep records, so you can't delete it!" This has happened before, and so I think Phil was totally in the right deleting the page per WP:IAR. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But you didn't just clean up his vandalism, Phil. You also deleted the responses to the AfD, and the record of the community consensus on the matter. Again, if you'd just deleted his nomination when he'd made it, I'd have had absolutely no problem with it. But a number of editors voiced their opinions in that AfD. So all I'm saying is that it would have been nice to have had a record of that... even if the AfD itself was originally initiated in bad faith. After all, I do believe most AfDs that result in a speedy keep are usually kept for posterity on Wikipedia, are they not? -- noosphere 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree with that insofar is would not have done much damage to keep the AfD (though I fear such actions would futher encourage trolls rather than deter them). Nonetheless, I don't think Phil's actions were in any way wrong, and it's not a deletion that I would contest. And I would also argue that even an AfD that resulted in speedy keep could reflect poorly upon an article, in that someone felt the need to nominate it in the first place. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to again point out, that this is hardly 'the record of the community consesus' on the matter. Even disregarding who nominated it and why, it was still ended extremely early, on the very basis of it being a bad faith nomination. Arkon 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A speedy keep is rarely (ever?) the result of a long and drawn-out process in which a great number of editors participate. But a result of a speedy keep does demonstrate that there was enough consensus for the AfD to be rejected virtually immediately. I believe a record of such an event is valuable. But I won't belabor the point further. It's done. And the consensus here seems to be that Phil did nothing wrong by deleting the AfD, even though it may not have been done strictly according to the rules. I'll accept that and move on. As I said before, this is not a huge deal for me. -- noosphere 04:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The speedy keep was correct; deleting the debate was suboptimal but not wrong. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvio on Incest talk page?

    There are several articles which seem to have been inserted in full (or if not then large blocks) on the talk page.--Anchoress 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem, I just don't like to step over other editors without knowing what I'm doing. I *think* I know text copyright law as it pertains to the internet, but I didn't want to just blank all the text without checking with a more experienced editor first. I'll know better next time, thanks.--Anchoress 06:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Include in your edit summary the source of the copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He keeps adding factually incorrect info to Algonquin College and refuses to cite sources. Ardenn 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He's now removing tags and blanking sections of pages such as this. Ardenn 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 48h for repeated violation of WP:RS while refusing to discuss with other editors. This should probably go to WP:AIV, by the way. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The return of the permanently banned User:Irate

    Admin User:Samuel Blanning has asked that I place a note here, as he has banned blocked the IP User:84.9.210.236 (amongst others) as a sock of User:Irate, but is not familiar with the case history.

    User:Irate who was hardbanned by Jimbo Wales, and has had multiple sockpuppets such as User:IanDavies and User:Son of Paddy's Ego has come back using the IP's User:84.9.210.236, User:87.75.131.249 and User:84.9.193.224 to edit articles on British counties, on which he has a fairly extreme view, after User:Lancsalot made a few changes (which admittedly didn't follow the naming conventions, but could have been quickly rectified). When challenged he produced several personal attacks and created a vandal category into which he placed three users, including myself.

    The main evidence I can offer for identification purposes is from User:David_Gerard's block log here; if you look at the bottom he blocked a lot of IP's in the same 84.9.x.x range for being his sockpuppets. The spelling mistakes, frequent attacks and style of editing are absolutely identical when compared them to the contributions of User:IanDavies, for example here and here and the anon contributions [106], [107] and [108]. Most admins who have dealt with this user previously (eg User:David Gerard, User:Morwen, User:Matt Crypto, User:JzG) would confirm his identity.

    More background on this editor, look at his posts on wikien-l which led up to his ban.

    The charge sheet just for today reads as WP:3RR, WP:NPA and editing as a banned user; it would be useful for other admins to verify this block and keep an eye out for further activity. Aquilina 14:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user keeps coming back with new IPs and socks. So far he's used:

    Can someone with the technical know-how block his entire range? All of these IPs have had no previous contributions, so collateral damage is unlikely. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The vandalism is ongoing, see 84.9.210.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); any help with the IP range block would be very gratefully received. Aquilina 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know how to do it, and I can do it, but I don't understand why to. Could you explain what is going on more clearly? Prodego talk 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor, who should be blocked on sight after his indefinite ban, has spent today making repeated personal attacks on editors who have challenged him [109], [110] [111]...etc. Each time one IP is blocked, he comes back on a new one and replaces all his edits - look at the contribs above, and then at User:84.9.195.184 and User:84.9.210.134, his latest two IPs. At the moment this is having to be cleaned up each time he reoffends on a case by case basis. As all the edits come from two ranges, it would be far quicker to put a shortish block on the ranges concerned. Without the block, there's not much other option - it's not a case for AIV, and AN & AN/I are massively congested. Aquilina 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He started yesterday morning [112] and the most recent edit I know of was this evening, 24 hours later [113]. So no, he hasn't stopped, we need to block his range to stop him. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for three hours. Prodego talk 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How big a range are we talking about, and are there good contributors coming from it? Phil Sandifer 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    /22 (1024 addresses). According to the above users "collateral damage is unlikely". Prodego talk 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps the block should just be 1 hour, do you think I should change to that? Prodego talk 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that the vandalism has occured over a period of 48 hours so far, I'm actually surprised the block wasn't for longer. There's a good chance he'll be asleep for most of it (I assume he's English and it's 11.30pm right now). I appreciate that a range block of 1,024 IPs has very significant potential for collateral damage, but none of the IPs used so far have had a single contribution before Irate started using it. I can continue blocking individual IPs when he returns, of course, but when it takes him about 20 minutes to switch IPs, what does it matter whether they're blocked for 1 hour or 1 month? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Range blocks and sprotect are the solution. Block enough ranges and he'll eventually have to reboot 10 or 20 times to get a working IP, which is quite discouraging. Sprotecting the pages he's editing means that even if he does, he still can't get his stuff into articles, which is also discouraging. Jayjg (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also blocked his sockpuppets User:RunningMan and User:TrackInspector. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The following dynamic ranges have been used:

    CIDR Range
    87.75.130.0/23 (87.75.130.0 - 87.75.131.255)
    84.9.210.0/23 (84.9.210.0 - 84.9.211.255)
    84.9.192.0/22 (84.9.192.0 - 84.9.195.255)

    These might be possible to use, but have not been:

    CIDR Range
    84.9.196.0/22 (84.9.196.0 - 84.9.199.255)
    84.9.200.0/22 (84.9.200.0 - 84.9.203.255)
    84.9.204.0/22 (84.9.204.0 - 84.9.207.255)

    Prodego talk 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User 140.239.109.3

    User 140.239.109.3 works hard to vandalize seemingly random articles. I suggest an immediate block in order to protect the content of Wikipedia. Maybe a permanent ban, since it seems like this IP is used for vandalism only. /Magore 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Vsmith 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly, user Amerrescue (claiming to be Doug Copp) has threatended with legal action in the article [114]. I believe that he is serious in his intentions. I do not know the process when something like this happens. In addition, I will be away for a week and will not be able to do anything. Can someone help? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely for legal threats. Tom Harrison Talk 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is at it again. Now using a sock puppet User:24.224.197.109. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for three months. Feel free to revert such threats as you see them (in addition to reporting them) in the future. --InShaneee 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This userbox used by hundreds of users has been vandalized by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs) and protected in the vandalized state by Freakofnurture (talk · contribs). An userbox of the size of a full article (full of heave calibre POV) is obvious vandalism to me. BTW, none of the two vandals uses this userbox. To add insult to injury, one of them added a rotating crucifix as the image (now deleted). A user Rexmorgan (talk · contribs) who tried to revert this obvious vandalism has been blocked for 24h by Freakofnurture (talk · contribs). Friendly Neighbour 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd hesitate to call anything here "obvious vandalism", but it does look like a silly edit war. FWIW, Tony Sidaway has dealt with this in a sensible way, putting the template back to a simple version and unprotecting. Friday (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not obvious? A userbox with the height of my screen? C'mon. Look the definition in Wikipedia:Userboxes: "A userbox is a small coloured box that allows users to add small messages on their user pages". Anyway, thanks Tony! Friendly Neighbour 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, the other version was accurate :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I agree this was absurd, I wouldn't call it anything worse than a content dispute. He certainly meant well, at the very least. --InShaneee 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A classic case of the wrong version :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was no mere vandalism. Changing a message hundreds of people have already chosen for their userpages is megavandalism of hundreds userpages. I believe long blocks are the only appropriate penalties for such mega-vandals. Friendly Neighbour 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Megavandalism, huh? The problem is, if people had just subst'd their templates, they wouldn't have known about this at all. --InShaneee 18:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is hundreds of people did't. Can they be vandalized because they never heard of "subst" (like me until very recently) or simply preferred the uncluttered versions of their pages (also like me)? Maybe we should also replace our userpages with uploaded screenshots of them, not to be the 3RR guilty party when a vandal gets the idea of a "content dispute" on our pages ;-) Friendly Neighbour 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This reeks of POINT and it certainly isn't civil. Furthermore, I am astounded that someone would actually block for this case of 3RR and not block Cyde and Gmaxwell. You shouldn't get to edit war by virtue of having one more person than the other side and get away with it.

    Seriously, this was wildly inappropriate, disruptive, not done in good faith, etc even if I think it was hilarious. Kotepho 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to concur here. I thought it was funny too, and I am the one that got blocked over it. However, "funny" is not really appropriate when it is affecting many users on The Project. With regard to InShaneee's comment - subst is not, as far as I know, official policy or even suggested guideline regarding userboxes at this point, so it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have already worked together to come up with that solution to the problem. Rexmorgan 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not have been the best move, but I still wouldn't call it vandalism. First of all, the simple fact is that without transclusion, you're open to whatever happens to the template, like it or not. Secondly, although the gif was a bit over the top, the new text was NPOV, and as silly as it came out, I don't think it's something he should be punished for; rather, he should simply be overruled on the talk page. --InShaneee 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I see one of these userbox squabbles, it makes me want to tear out my eyes. Whether intended or not, they always end up waltzing with WP:POINT. Keep the blasted thing at Tony's version. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't call it "vandalism" necessarily, so much as a massive WP:DICK move. These are admins behaving like little children - very disappointing. Isn't there an encyclopedia around here you could be writing, guys? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gmaxwell started it again. This time a "compromise version". I reverted him once. I would prefer a better solution. Anyone ready to block the vandal? Friendly Neighbour 19:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a talk page there. These things CAN be discussed. Blocking isn't always the answer. Neither is reverting a 3 word change and calling it 'massive vandalism'. When two users refuse to discuss a change, BOTH are at fault. --InShaneee 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not talking an article page. We are talking a message that multiple users link to their userpages (as userbiox policy allows them to) and some other users (who do not use it) want changed. The outsiders can always create their own template if they want. This is the difference between an article about a person/thing/idea and a template where a dissatisfied user can always create a new one. There is no need of template compromises. Really. Friendly Neighbour 20:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:OWN. You do not own that template, nor does anyone else. It may be freely edited just like anything else here. Compromise is not only needed, it's expected. --InShaneee 20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not get my point my point. You can't "own" an article exactly because there can be only one on a given subject. You actually can "own" a template because anyone can create a new one (for example adding a number to the name). Friendly Neighbour 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you can't own ANYTHING, period. Templates (such as userboxes) included. If you want your own userbox, subst it, or just create it wholly on your userpage. Once it's put in the Template space, it's subject to all the usual policies. --InShaneee 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good Job Friendly Neighbour, in your haste to defend against evil you managed to revert text suggested by someone who appears to hold your position. As InShaneee said above, compromise is a core aspect of wikipedia. Please discontinue your allegations of bad faith and join the discussion rather than attacking. --Gmaxwell 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to qualify, reverting discussed, agreed upon changes can be considered vandalism. --InShaneee 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Holy War

    Saying this as a non-religious person, I am both appalled and offended at some of the actions being made by two administrators, Gmaxwell and Cyde at Template talk:User Christian. This far oversteps being disruptive to make a WP:POINT. They clearly have no interest in this template other than to offend, disrupt, and probably see to it that the template is ultimately deleted as a result of their offensive disruption. 207.200.116.138 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:AGF as soon as possible, please. --InShaneee 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He should assume good faith when someone writes a whole article inside a userbox, ruining many userpages? There was no good faith, just admins vandalizing. Lapinmies 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't want anyone being able to change what appears on your userpage then you oughn't be transcluding templates. Please read up on WP:OWN while you're at it. Also note that calling an established Wikipedian a vandal because you disagree with them is far, far beyond the pale. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The point was not that they can't be changed, it was that they should not contain a whole article. Lapinmies 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no guideline stating that. As I said before, if anyone had a problem with it, the talk page is the first place it should be brought. --InShaneee 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no guideline stating that you should not stick peas in your nose. Lapinmies 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. And I, along with many of my fellow users, strongly support other user's right to do so, along with anything else they may choose to do outside of wikipedia, where we have no control over them. --InShaneee 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm appalled that anyone thinks this comment is anything other than trolling. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So we can assume good faith of someone who (as an obvious joke) replaces a userbox with an article, but we can't assume good faith of someone who considers that action a violation of WP:POINT? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We can assume good faith in EVERYONE, if I'm reading the policy correctly. --InShaneee 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was sort of my point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm appalled that anyone is calling an online content dispute a "Holy War". Millions of people have died in real Holy Wars. That's like calling the New Years Userbox deletion "The Userbox Holocaust". --Cyde Weys 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See Flame war#Holy wars --Carnildo 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, now that Mackensen has speedy-deleted the template under T1, I'm sure that everything will calm down. (rolls eyes) Everybody, brace for impact — it's going to be New Year's all over again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was dividing people in a big way...I'd consider that 'divisive'. --InShaneee 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ... nnnno it wasn't. Cyde and Gmaxwell having fun with the content at the expense of everyone who put it on their page was being divisive. There is absolutely nothing divisive about the content that was at {{User Christian}}. JDoorjam Talk 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah — the only divisiveness came about when Cyde and Gmaxwell started their joke. The same thing could be done to any userbox, not just political or religious ones. To take an example at random, Template:User male could be replaced with an essay on biological sex differences and the sociological deconstruction of gender. (Of course, I wouldn't do that, because unlike some people I respect WP:POINT.) I really think this was ill-considered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, of course, comes back to the issue of userboxes. Should they be wiped off the face of the earth? No. Should they be subst:'d? Yes. After all, this is an encyclopaedia, and saying "This User is a Christian" is unencyclopaedic (although I find Cyde's version still too restrictive in its definition). As for size restrictions on userboxes - have a look at the one at the bottom of David Gerard's page. Now that's a userbox. Guettarda 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen, I agree that userboxes should be subst:ed. I just don't think that this is the way to go about it. If we're going to subst: all userboxes, then let's formulate an appropriate policy and do it. This maneuver (starting an argument, and then deleting the template because it's divisive) smacks to me of pushing someone into the mud and then condemning him for being dirty. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For historical purposes, it was RexM's fault for editing it to say "This user claims to be a Christian". Having said that, despite how hilarious the Gmaxwell & Cyde version of the userbox was (I miss the animated crucifix; I'm actually considering using the userbox in my userspace, although I really am a Christian), they were definitely violating WP:POINT. I won't go as far as WP:VANDAL, but this was definitely disruption (even if meant well, and done in an absolutely hilarious manner). Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to hear from Cyde and Gmaxwell why they thought a userbox was an appropriate place for an essay on Christianity, with a big animated crucifix gif, no less. Thatcher131 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, this is all well and good, but now that the userbox has been axed, shouldn't this debate move on to WP:DRVU? –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just like to point out that we still have Template:User Catholic, Template:User Protestant, Template:User Muslim, Template:User Buddhist, Template:User Jewish, and probably a lot of other ones. If "This user is a Christian" is division, then all of these are, too. Either we need to delete them all, or an infobox saying "This user is a Christian" needs to be reinstated. — BrianSmithson 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd just like to let folks know that I've substed the userbox on all the user pages it was used on. I can do the others too, if people want them gone from Template space. I've expressed my opinion on the edit war itself already on the WikiEN mailing list, so I won't repeat it here. It's not particularly polite, anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what should happen, frankly. Substed code on a userpage isn't subject to anyone's petty whims. I can't say I'm happy about the last 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've listed the template at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates#Template:User Christian. The debate can move there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No legit T1. Nothing to debate.Geni 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Constanz

    I have blocked this user for 1 hour for disruption. (S)he created Template:User no Marxism, a recreation of Template:User No Marxism, which was deleted under t1 and endorsed yesterday by DRV. This was disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and I have fired a short warning shot. --Doc ask? 16:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    205.158.140.77 request to block self

    205.158.140.77 has requested to be blocked from editing. Claims the IP address represents a school, and given the number of vandalisms from this IP, I think this is probably true. Rexmorgan 18:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's pretty infrequent. Maybe a month off would do? RadioKirk talk to me 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fine to me. I'm not really the one asking for this, I am merely relaying 205.158.140.77's request for blockage. I agree with the request, but as far as duration, that is up to the admins of course. Rexmorgan 18:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll be WP:BOLD. Others can review with my thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What someone behind that IP were to become a positive contributor? There was almost no vandalism, so there isn't much of a problem. Plus, "requested blocks" are not in the blocking policy. I don't think the IP should be blocked. Prodego talk 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence this notice—still, I'll happily defer to anyone who overrules. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also be wary of allowing one student choose to get everyone else blocked. Plus, we have no indication whether or not it's a static IP, or whether the school is covered by more than one IP (there are contributions from adjacent IP addresses). Until an offical request comes in, I'd suggest dealing with as normal and leave unblocked. Regards, MartinRe 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This could just be a troll trying to keep his friends from editing as some sort of pranks. --InShaneee 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Naturally, that occurred to me; the IP's history belies that, however—it's virtually all vandalism. These were the reasons why I went with a one-month block (as opposed to something stronger) and the note on the talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Accuracy of the French military history article

    Please don't revert this edit. Nobody in the military refers to service rifles as "assault rifles". Thanks. --129.2.176.2 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mitso Bel

    User:Mitso Bel is trying to add his personal views into the anti-Arabism article. Such views include Arabs destroyed Iran and mass-murdered Iranians [115], Arabs are jealous of Persians and are hostile towards them, and that "Traditional Egyptian hostility toward Persians has been very well documented" [116]. I have reverted his edits twice and asked him not to push his POV into the article, but I don't think he is going to stop. Also, would his edits be considered vandalism? --Inahet 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, content dispute. Does he have sources for these assertions? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, it is borderline. Either way, without sources to which these assertions are attributed, its OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberal arts colleges vandalism and sockpuppetry

    Latinlovinglatino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in a particular pattern of vandalism in the last month and a half, replacing mottoes on Haverford College, Swarthmore College, and Macalester College with a latin phrase that translates as "Our students are very dumb". (Diffs: [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124]) He was warned, including a final warning [125], after which he turned his attention to questionably appropriate images, not actually against any policy (except WP:DICK) (see his user page for an example.) Today, I_majored_in_classics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized Bryn Mawr College in the same manner as described above (Diff: [126]). It seems clear from contribution and username evidence that User:I majored in classics is a sockpuppet of User:Latinlovinglatino, used in an attempt to evade a threatened block, and as such, User:I majored in classics should be permablocked and User:Latinlovinglatino should be temporarily blocked for vandalism. --CComMack 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dc9 (talk · contribs), Dc10 (talk · contribs)

    The only edits of the above two users have been to add {{sockpuppet}} tags to the talk page of GO WHARTON (talk · contribs). The tags have changed several times, as if the tagger can't decide what exactly GO WHARTON's alignment is, which makes them somewhat suspicious. The names (Dc9 and Dc10) are obvious indicators of some sort of socking. Isopropyl 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    True jesus (talk · contribs)

    I first came across this user a couple of weeks ago when he was moving True Jesus Church to multiple absurd locations and creating POV forks of the article, to satirize and criticize the church, which he continued despite several polite warnings from User:Jose77 and myself. He then went on a rampage repeatedly blanking his talk page of the warnings despite the requests of many that he stop. Now he has begun trolling my talk page, Jose77's talk page, User:Hoary's talk page, and, given his history of attacking everyone who contacts him about his behavior, I'm sure he'll soon begin attacking User:Prodego. Beyond that, his username is also potentially inflammatory and quite inappropriate. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and I might also add that he has been vandlizing several userpages, including my own. So far, I've seen only vandalism from this account. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked as a disruptive account. I didn't see anything going on that looked like trying to write an encyclopedia, but I place this notice here in case some other admin wishes to review the block. Syrthiss 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think I've ever disputed an indefinite blocking, and I am sure as hell not going to start with this one! --Cyde Weys 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IANAA, and I don't think the username issue to be altogether significant, but I do think it's clear that the user's principal purpose is disruption, and so I think an indef block is likely appropriate. Since the user is a relatively new user, I accept that he/she was acting in good faith in moving the True Jesus Church article (although one worries that the user registered expressly in order to make such move, in view of the user name selected), thinking Wikipedia to be endorsing the church (when, in actuality, we simply use the name the church ascribes to itself), but his/her subsequent actions show, at best, an inability to work constructively with others and to learn Wikipedia's policies, especially with respect to consensus. Perhaps an uninvolved admin should post a note to the user page to the effect that if the user agrees to comport his/her behavior with Wikipedia's policies, the user may be unblocked, with the caveat that any further vandalism/trolling/page blanking will result in an indef block. Joe 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Syrthiss. I'm usually adamently opposed to indefinite blocks, but I think it's quite clear that his account existed from day one to troll the True Jesus Church article (given the username), and he's made quite clear that he does not want to contribute positively. I was thinking more along the lines of a 48hr block just to make it known that we're serious, but I'm certainly not going to object to this decision! AmiDaniel (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Before he created that disruptive account, this user was already persistently vandalising TJC articles (especially the True Jesus Church in India article & talk page) under the IP addresses:
    128.113.18.225, 128.113.18.228, 128.113.18.207, 128.113.64.65, 128.113.64.29, 128.113.64.63.

    -- Joseph, 05:28 Friday 12 May 2006 (UTC)

    Looks legit to me. I'll go tag the sockpuppets, and we might consider blocking those accounts too, though I'm still not sure we want to consider this block as an indefinite "ban." He still might some day give up his past and decide to contribute effectively, and blocking the IPs may cause unnecessary collateral damage. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KymeSnake

    WP:RCU confirms that this is Iasson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). KymeSnake is quiescent, but not blocked. Septentrionalis 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Henceforth, it is quite inconsequentialPatrick J. 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one would like to contribute an idea to not tolerate this sort of behavior. "Block 'em with a smile"!(tm)Woody'sAlwaysSmilin'! 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is going on here, two first comments from new user accounts? --Cyde Weys 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Our old friend the AN:I troll again. Both indef blocked. --InShaneee 00:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it make sense to sprotect this page, then? --Cyde Weys 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If by this page you mean WP:ANi, then no I can't edit things that are sprotected--152.163.100.65 00:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See the edit summary? I wouldn't want to try to delete this page. Prodego talk 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:I'M THE MOTHERFUCKING JUGGERNAUT BITCH!!!

    This user has been blocked for their username and they are repeatedly attempting to edit, filling up the Blocklist with autoblocks. DOS vandal? Anything we can do about this? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably. Not really.Geni 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You could reset/blank their password....hopefully, seeing as how this is the 4th time in the last hour I've hit one of their autoblocks--64.12.116.65 03:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You could suggest on the talk page that, without a comma, this username implies that the user is either the juggernaut bitch (i.e., an unstoppable bitch), or the bitch of The Juggernaut (sounds painful), and that they consider the syntax of the next moniker they choose. Beyond that I got nothin'. JDoorjam Talk 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction to the above: the name indicates is that it belongs to the female dog that is a juggernaut of having sexual intercourse with its own mother (or some other mother). Everyone needs a talent, I suppose. Geogre 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: IT refers to The Juggernaut Bitch (now defunct) it's a nonnotable amateur video that got famous for a few days. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I found myself forced to unblock the Juggernaut, along with a crapload of autoblocks, in order to release yet again the very unfortunate AOL user User:WBardwin, who's had precious little opportunity to edit in the past few days. See User talk:WBardwin. See my recent unblocking activity here!I did the same with another AOL block the other day, and I believe a few other admins have done the same. If anybody has a better solution than undoing those autoblocks by hand, and especially any suggestion for avoiding letting the vandal walk free, please share. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Except you didn't actually unblock the user (nor In my opinion should you), you unblocked !! not !!!, so it was just the autoblocks which did it, and that really is the only option that I'm aware of. What I don't get is why the AOL users don't enmasse complain to AOL --pgk(talk) 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded! Geogre 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (a victim of such "collateral" damage as a victim of Netscape ISP)[reply]

    Yet again with admin telephone numbers

    FWIW, a number purporting to be that of Alkivar is in an edit summary in this page's history (viz., here). Joe 02:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This has gotten out of hand. Wikipedia needs to take specific legal action against this user, as its obvious that they're not going to stop on their own. Daniel Davis 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone done a CU to determine if it's coming from a static IP/IP range? --InShaneee 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's dynamic: Bell Canada. Prodego talk 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I fully support initiating legal action here. Can Danny do something about this? --InShaneee 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what legal action you suggest be taken. There's almost surely nothing illegal about one's posting the telephone number of an admin; at worst, such posting is in contravention of Wikipedia policies (and, to be sure, possibly of Bell Canada's terms of service). I don't think postings such as that relative to Alkivar are particularly egregious, inasmuch as he provides his full name and city of residence on his user page; it's not wholly unreasonable to assume that thence one will find one's telephone number. That is in no way to countenance the posting of the number which is surely against policy (which policy exists for important reasons), but only to say that, notwithstanding that there is no legal action to be taken, I'd not support the use of WF resources for any such action. Joe 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely wrong. The posting of unauthorized personal information by a third party is against several US (and one would assume) Canadian laws concerning privacy, and is actionable. Daniel Davis 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As applies to telephone numbers, IMHO, you're mistaken. Someone probably should remove the egregious edit from the page's history, but an admin will need to tackle that. Joe 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried delete/restore; page history's too big, it times out RadioKirk talk to me 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the love of God, NEVER try to delete/restore a page this big. Talk to a developer on IRC, but NEVER try to delete/restore a page this big. Ral315 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the rate at which posts are made on this page, it might not even be necessary to remove the edit. It's almost off the top 50 as it is, so it's quite unlikely that a prank caller will stumble across it (the user's information is also on his userpage, so the risk is probably higher that a user would get his num there, rather than off the ANI history). As for the legalities, I'm not sure of exact laws, but I know such actions go against Wikipedia's privacy policy. It's probably not necessary to bring the guy to go court, but a threatening letter would probably be in order as this is happening again and again and again... AmiDaniel (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Google and others provide phone numbers, so I really doubt there's anything illegal here. Further, we ought to observe NLT for the good guys as well as bad. However, Bell Canada's ISP surely has an abuse account, surely has procedures for dealing with users who do this stuff. We ought to be contacting them and explaining the vandalism being done and how it amounts to DOS if done in a particular way. Geogre 11:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they don't. Google uses a database of numbers provided to them by whichever phone company the individual signs up with- at sign time the person has to explicitly and clearly state that they want their number published in the phone book (which is then at Google's request given to them). Giving out personal, private telephone information (or any other information) without the individual's consent is a violation of several harassment laws, at least in the US. Not sure about Canada. I know this because I did telemarketing for a while, and they made SURE we knew both the laws AND the loopholes regarding personal info. Daniel Davis 12:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed some usernames in this category that ought not to exist. I know that normally users can't be deleted, but is there a way for developers to delete these users or change usernames of the sockpuppets? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody help Johnleemk?

    Would somebody here be able to mentor Johnleemk? As the result of an arbitration case, he posted these words on a talk page: "Lou_franklin is banned from editing this article... The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." [127]

    Since it explicitly said "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", I did. As a result he blocked me for 48 hours! He apparently made a mistake posting the wording because he changed it to "the user is prevented" after he blocked me. Obviously since the talk page said I am "not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", it is not appropriate to ban me for doing so!

    Other users [128] suggested to him that he "ask for clarification at the relevant ArbCom page" and "I think it is advisable to ask clarification" and "since the template was misleading, the block should probably be lifted", but he flatly refused saying "there is nothing to clarify... Specific rulings overrule a general template." I asked him to post a link to the Wikipedia policy that states that. He could not provide one, and responded by saying "you should know better than to rely on a general template".

    This admin is making up rules as he goes. If an admin posts that it's OK for a user to add to the discussion, it's really not reasonable for the same admin to block the user for doing so. Is there an admin here who would be able to explain that to John? Lou franklin 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Something wonky is going on here. Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is supposed to be under a seven day block for violating the terms of his personal attack parole. I don't see any reason why he should be unblocked right now – when Johnleemk blocked Lou, Johnleemk cleared the previous block before reblocking – but Lou has been able to edit this page and User talk:Jimbo Wales].
    Can anybody figure out why this block isn't sticking? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody please address the actual issue? Lou franklin 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest trying unblocking, then reblocking again. --InShaneee 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unfairly blocked for over 48 hours. Maybe the system has a fairness quotient built in Lou franklin 03:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And maybe you're wikilawyering. The arbcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin case pretty clearly says (in the first remedy) that you are banned from the article AND the talk page. That Johnleemk put up the wrong template is regrettable, but the arbcom findings, in my view, overrule minor procedural errors like that. You need to stay out of that article AND its talk page, indefinitely. It would also be helpful if you didn't post long rants about the sad decline of Wikipedia on the talk pages of all and sundry, but we can't have everything. As for the topic, I don't see where Johnleemk needs any help, he's doing fine. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems to be thinking that since John told him he could edit that page, it meant he was free to do as he pleased (including calling other editors sexist slurs). I think it was rather big of John to give him a chance in the first place, and he most certainly did the right thing when Lou stepped way out of line again. I've tried unblocking/reblocking Lou, hopefully it'll stick. --InShaneee 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has shown nothing but bad-faith, and I endorse this block. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse. Threatened to get me desysopped if I didn't rollback his disruption on ArbCom members' talk pages. Will (E@) T 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support mentoring, Johnleemk is clearly new and inexperienced with this admin thing that he's supposed to be doing, and clearly needs an experienced mentor to help guide him along this path. [129] --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're all newbs to me :) Raul654 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And me too. :p (Although I'm definitely a newb to Raul -- when I arrived he was already a juggernaut on Wikipedia.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're all newbies. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of laws

    Jurisprudence has a concept called conflict of laws.

    I've noticed that this concept and some other legal concepts are not well understood in wikipedia, including by arbcom. But that is to be expected in a young project and one which inevitbably reflects the power of appointing members to arbcom. Nonetheless, in this case, and even if Lou is gaming the system, the rule of law should be respected and applied.

    Since I'm a legal positivist in my thinking and training I argue that the law is applied to suit the outcome desired by those making the decision. It would be better though, in this case, to give the benefit of the doubt. The 48 hour block was thus unjustified.

    As to the 7 day block. Excessive. Homo is derogatory, yes but not as derogatory as some words. Lou should be unblocked and templates should be improved.

    To put the matter beyond doubt, my comments should not be read in any way for support of his views. Mccready 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of Laws occurs when two different nations have different laws, that contradict each other. This is not within a country. Same here, this is within wikipedia, and there it does not apply. Kim van der Linde at venus 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, we don't do legalities here. We go (or should go) by common sense and the good of the project. Friday (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, WP:NOT a micronation. We don't make laws; we make policies and principles and expect editors to use their common sense instead of lawyer their way out of trouble. Also, I find this emphasis on the homo thing strange; to me, it was secondary to the massive bad faith Lou placed in his post to Jimbo's talk. As the arbitration committee insisted that special attention be paid to bad faith, and in light of Lou's recent violation of his article ban (I've already explained on his talk why he can't use the template as an excuse), the 7 day block is justified. (Even if it wasn't and we want to hew to policy, bear in mind that the arbitration committee set the maximum block at 7 days -- if Lou even slightly deviates from what he's supposed to do, any admin can wham him as hard as they like provided the block does not exceed 1 week. I was lenient with Lou the first time, so the second time round...) Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Call it what you will (law, rule, principle, policy, guideline, "spirit not the letter", norm etc), in the last analysis you have a system of power where some are more powerful than others, yet WP is still a normative community and that means "laws". Whether you interpret them as black letter law or as spirit, as a positivist, I say the outcome is identical. And in any normative community unless you have consistency and justice, unless you temper power with good judgement and impartiality you will undermine the community. John, your block edit of a week only mentioned "homophobic epithet", not the display of bad faith which I agree was deserving of a block even allowing for rhetoric. I'm still inclined to think the penalty on the harsh side. "Wham him as hard as they like" might not be the attitude to enourage a reformed editor. And by the way, conflict of laws doesn't only apply to nations, Kim. If I understand the norms here correctly, would it be possible for John to express willingness for another admin, someone less closely involved, to remake the decision? Mccready 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. There's a lot of support for his actions from a lot of uninvolved admins. --InShaneee 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall using either "homophobic" or "epithet" at all where Lou was involved. I can't remember the last time I used the word "homophobic" (probably in some off-Wikipedia irrelevant debate about homosexuality), and the last time I used "epithet" was in literature class. My summary for the block only referred to a violation of the personal attack parole, and my message to Lou focused on bad faith with the "homo" comment added as a finishing touch. The basis of the block was never the "homo" comment, and certainly never was "homophobic epithet". Johnleemk | Talk 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The legal jargon leaves me cold. Lou violated two of the conditions set by ArbCom, received a week's block (John referred to this as "the full one week", personally I would have thought the maximum was two weeks for two violations) and consensus is behind the blocking admin's interpretation. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    John, it appears you may be in error here. The system records you as using the phrase "homophobic epithet" in the edit summary [130]. Could someone else have had access to your logon? Sam, what I meant to say is whether you apply "law" or "spirit of law" the outcome is identical. As a relatively new user I'd appreciate an answer to my question as to whether WP culture permits John to step back and allow someone else to remake the decision? Mccready 04:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No other admin -- not one -- has disgreed with his decision, and every one of them has the ability to override it. No other other admin -- not one -- has overridden his decision, but have in fact tried to help him implement it better. All the irrelevant pseudo-legal arguments you can concoct don't change this basic fact. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh...the title of the section I was editing was "User:Lou franklin and homophobic epithet". I did not use the word "homophobic epithet"; the complainant (Cleduc) did. (My edit summary for this edit will be "Conflict of laws" because that's the title of this section, but I'm certainly not using that phrase at all.) My rationale for the block has been clearly stated, and the "homophobic epithet" did not form the bulk of its basis. Anyhow, WP culture discourages wheel warring unless there's consensus that the admin just went bonkers. There's consensus that I didn't go bonkers, and asking someone else to undo my block and then redo it is just process wonkery. (Incidentally, someone else did block Lou after it turned out my 1-week block didn't take effect, so your request has already been fulfilled in a sense.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for advice

    Sorry to troubel with a "trivial" issue, but I'm trying to avoid being blocked. I have been criticised on several occasions for breaking process: my understanding is that editing one's own talk page to remove "negative" comments constitutes breach of process. My problem is that my talk page has been edited by someone else, not at my behest, and in doing so has removed "critical" commentary. On the other hand, I do not wish to revert this without some authority, in case this is treated as improperly reverting a senior user's edit. Advice, please. I have ceased any editing on Wiki for the time being, just in case. -- Simon Cursitor 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you talking about this? Also note: there are no "senior users". We're all equal here. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 07:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted his edit, as he was removing the section because the DRV was over, I guess (though it seems odd that it was an account that wasn't even in the conversation, and considering socks were mentioned...), but anyway, talk page messages are generally kept (and [[WP:ARCHIVE|archived when the page gets full), rather than removing sections that aren't necessary anymore. As it was your talk, people shouldn't be removing comments anyway, especially if it's not their own. --07:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

    PS3 edit war

    PlayStation 3 has been the subject of an edit war over whether to use a free image Image:Sony PlayStation 3.jpg or a fair use one Image:Ps3stock.jpg. I protected the article recently to stop the war, but soon after unprotection somebody uploaded Image:PS3 Large Final.jpg, which is a slightly smaller version of the original fair use image, only it's been tagged as being CC-BY instead. I find this claim highly dubious, and have deleted both the fair use image and the almost-certainly-a-lie image (WP:AGF only goes so far). As far as I'm concerned, the issue was quite clear: a "fair use" claim can't override a quite sufficient image simply because the FU image is purdy, and re-uploading a FU image with a CC-BY tag is inappropriate. However, I await the community's brickbats, should that be the result. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And now Dodgyc (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images "© Sony, all rights reserved" with CC-BY ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing wrong with what you've done. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither. Kill copyright violations with fire. Warn repeat offenders, then block. Nandesuka 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous bot?

    68.34.13.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -GTBacchus(talk) 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like Peter Ruckman is once again, editing his own barely notable biography--152.163.100.65 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bobaboba

    I just permenantly blocked this user who was doing classic Willy on Wheels page move vandalism, random pages moved to "... on wheels". He (she?) has been editing since February and with no vandalism history. They are asking to be reinstated, claiming "my brother did it". I've told them to go away for 24hrs at least. Any thoughts on whether we should give them a second chance? DJ Clayworth 16:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My thought is "absolutely not." Nandesuka 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest 24 hour block, then watch carefully and reblock indef as soon as another "on wheels" page move is made. Kimchi.sg 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, there have been wonky things coming from this account today. Meddling with other users' reports at WP:ABUSE and impersonating other users together with the page moves warrant not lifting the indef block you've imposed. Kimchi.sg 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cro..Scream

    Cro..Scream (talk · contribs) has admitted in two AFD pages that he is creating hoax articles. This on top of his repeated edit warring and possible sock puppet voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Donahue makes me wonder if a day or so time out might not be in order. I won't do it without support, however. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is, by the way, an RFCU on the matter located here. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked user evading block

    Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is again evading his indefinite block as 216.194.2.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [131] for evidence). Can an administrator block this IP please? Thanks! Demiurge 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Merecat removing sockpuppet warning from user page

    Merecat, who was found via CheckUser to be a 'likely sockpuppet of Rex071404', ([133], [134], [135]) has refused to acknowledge the finding and has deleted the sockpuppet warnings from his user page. As Mackensen said:

    Likely than the Anon Texan and merecat are the same user. It's patently obvious that merecat is evading his block to spam talk pages (including mine, damn it all). Based on talk page evidence, I wouldn't disagree that they're tied to BigDaddy777, but we don't have records going back to October. [edit] Actually, I'm not sure about the BigDaddy connection. But he and the Anon Texan are definitely the same user. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    Likely that he's also Rex071404 (talk * contribs). Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

    What is the limit to this community's tolerance of outright trolls circumventing policy? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please tell Ryan to actually read the policy page before continuing along this line of inquisition. See WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.". Also, there is no such user a "User:AnonTexan" and Ryan knows that. The phrase "AnonTexan" was invented by another editor and is not a user account. Merecat 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Put a space in the name. You have been proven to be the Anon Texan. 'Likely' means beyond a reasonable doubt. And respond to the RfAr and the numerous users who have asked for the truth. Your behavior is more of the same from Rex... trolling and a lack of good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I restate: Please tell Ryan to actually read the policy page before continuing along this line of inquisition. See WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.". Also, there is no such user a "User:AnonTexan" and Ryan knows that. The phrase "AnonTexan" was invented by another editor and is not a user account. Merecat 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The accusation happened more than 7 days ago and the tags can therefore be removed per policy. Merecat is not blocked. Checkuser was not conclusive. Ryan is abusing the tags and has been harrassing Merecat. Ryan should be warned about abusing the tags and blocked if necessary. --Tbeatty 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anon Texan is a redirect which was created by User:Jonathunder. I did not create the user account User:Anon Texan. Merecat 18:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser was clear. Likely socks of Rex and Anon texan. The timing of the accusation is irrelevant. And duplicating posts is disrespectful and dismissive of the points raised in response. More trollery. You are a likely sock of a blocked user, evading an ArbComm ban. I suggest it is you who is in clear violation of numerous policies. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag used by Ryan clearly said "suspected" and as per WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.", was removed. In any case, 7 days from now, according to policy, I can remove it regardless of whay Ryan argues here. So, if we disagree on WP:SOCK "If a sock puppet is only suspected, then it should not be forcibly tagged.", I'm happy to wait 7 days before removing it from my user page. Merecat 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You may not have read the policy, but Checkuser confirmed you as a likely sock. The tags (which you have violated 3RR by removing) were appropriate and your behavior is just more grist for the RfAr. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not violate 3RR on my user page, but I am reasonably sure you are harassing me. Merecat 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You have thus far refused to answer the Checkuser, or other editors asking you in good faith. Trollsome behavior. My conduct (tagging you as a sock) is hardly harrassment. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Informed opinion posted on my talk page by other users informs me that User:RyanFreisling is in error demanding answers of me. I ask that Ryan be advised to leave me be. He/she could do better making actual edits to articles, rather than trying to gin up complaints against me. Merecat 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan, there is no current sockpuppet accusation and there is no block. Therefore it has not been concluded that Merecat is a sockpuppet. Further, since the accounts he is accused of being a sock puppet of have been inactive since November, it is not clear that they would be considered sock puppets at all. The sock puppet accusation is closed and is more than 7 days old. The account is not blocked so the accusations can be removed. Confirmed sockpuppets are blocked per policy. --Tbeatty 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Patently untrue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn you people. Likely means yes. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wanted to add that I investigated Merecat and Rex071404's edit history in-depth and from my standpoint, it's confirmed that they are the same. Merecat has continually evaded and danced around the direct question, but not denied it. I find this to be anti-social behavior, and there's no merit in indulging the lawyering.
    Note that I personally find Merecat's unwillingness to directly answer this question to be a far greater offense than anything in Merecat's article edit history. It shows not only a complete disregard for the community, but seems to show that Merecat has ulterior motives in editing Wikipedia.
    I will be glad to share any information I have if the RfAr proceeds, and I'm sorry it has to be this way. KWH 02:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Merecat's silence and the hysterical reaction to it, proves only that there is a bunch of overly sensitive editors here. And for your information, the question asked of Merecat was "are you Rex071404", to which the obvious answer was certainly "no" as Merecat was Merecat. Had any of you bother to ask Merecat, "did you ever edit as Rex071404, prior to moving to Texas", then you might have received an answer. Oh well, too late now. And if you think I am a sock, go look at the dialog with at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)#2.1 Question from an IP editor and tell me how many socks are running around here. Personally, I think that User:RyanFreisling is a sock of User:Kevin Baas, but that's just my opinion. Oh yeah, what's that Bender says "bite my shiny metal...". PS: Contrary to whatever you people think, I am not editing from a cellphone, I 'am a cellphone. You've all been too clever by half, so now I am going to propagate through the system and merge with you, taking you all over, Borg-like. Resistance is futile. Ps: User:Tbeatty is indeed a sock for Rex, but so is Nescio. HaHa! Fools! Regards, WillyOnMichael'sBigDaddyPelicanShitWheels. 04:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.38.136 (talk • contribs) -- Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Merecat blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Rex071404

    This is turning into a circus.

    I have just blocked Merecat indefinitely for sockpuppetry (checkuser) to evade the arbcom decision not to edit John Kerry, and for other disruptive behavior. I'm sure that he at least, and perhaps other folks, will not like this decision, but I stand behind it and welcome other administrators' review. Mackensen's checkuser, combined with the behavioral similarities documented at WP:RFAr (where a request has been made to reopen the Rex071404 case to reconsider this recent behavior), is convincing. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since Rex has not edited since November and CU logs don't go back that far, I would have suggested waiting until somone else, such as Arbcom, could review Mackensen's findings (since the raw data and/or full rationale would never be provided to ordinary line editors). Thatcher131 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn.Thatcher131 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CU logs are largely immaterial -- there've been four arbcom cases on Rex, most of which involved accusations of sockpuppetry; arbitrators are familiar with his IP information and it's probably also available in different places of Wikipedia's pseudo-legal system. The evidence is conclusive; there's really no need for a full arbcom case. Block leveled, arbcom can decide whether or not to extend the ban as needed, though I respect your opinion. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 19:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would request that the Merecat account be unblocked as this is the recent account. The other accounts have not been used for some time (6 months or more) and if Administrators feel a block is in order, it should be those accounts that are blocked. This appears to be more of a case of a new identity, not sock puppetry. --Tbeatty 19:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rex editing under a new account isn't necessarily the problem. Anybody can correct their behaviors, frankly, and start over with a new account and a clean slate -- it's not like we know who's behind every new account. The problem is that he used this new account to edit John Kerry, sometimes tendentiously, despite his arbcom ban (and then started behaving badly when people figured it out). That makes it sockpuppetry, and worse, sockpuppetry in direct contravention of an arbcom decision. This sort of behavior is bound to be censured, which is exactly what's happened. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Katefan's right on this one. I support this block. FeloniousMonk 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. I'll support as well. --Syrthiss 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholeheartedly conquer with the actions of User:Katefan0 and support this block. And so does my family in case you're wondering. (We always browse Wikipedia as a family).TTHelp 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else similarily interested in this first edit from this user? Looks possibly like our ANI vandal. --Syrthiss 20:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Style reminds me a little of User:Buckshot. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 21:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I support as well. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikistalking by Haham hanuka

    This user attacks my edits throughout Wikipedia, making me personally the item of his discussions and edits. See for example here. Can someone do something about this situation? gidonb 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute as far as I can see. And for what it's worth, I think he's correct; 'killed' is far more NPOV than 'murdered'. --InShaneee 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether it is OK that he puts my name as the header of the discussion. He does this all the time. It is really embarrassing (there were many users who thaught murdered was the correct phrase, I am always singled out). gidonb 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point...I'll bring it up to him. --InShaneee 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:156.63.87.26 vandalised Mexican Cession 13:56, 12 May 2006

    See this link Hdtopo 21:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William M. Connolley

    [136] Is this a satisfactory way an administrator should respond like? Who has got the authority to judge whether or not there's such a need? — Instantnood 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ...I'd say it's perfectly good sense to not edit the archives, unless something had been archived prematurely. Even then, often simply starting the debate anew with a link to the old threat can be done. --InShaneee 21:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What I did was to add a link from the archive to where the discussion has continued. I was not responding on the archived page itself. I don't have much opinion on whether archived entries can be edited, and I'm in fact seeking for comment on whether user:William M. Connolley's response is a satisfactory one, as from an administrator. — Instantnood 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You could either
    Take out a white glove and slap him across the face while loudly proclaiming your demand for satisfaction
    or
    Start a user RfC.
    but asking a dozen different people to come pay attention to you on the 256k administrators bickerboard is not going to accomplish anything. SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KAS evaded a block

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AKAS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sailor_Moon&curid=56088&diff=52891500&oldid=52884636

    KAS, while logged out, posted a comment while she still had about two hours left on her block. Had she been a little more patient, I would have looked the other way.

    --  Denelson83  21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rob neptune from IP User:64.149.174.5

    This user has taken his insistence that he be allowed to linkspam WP to new levels of attack, both against me in e-mail, and against WP here and here in violation of WP:POINT and WP:COPY.

    (See the users' contribs for evidence they are one and the same.)

    He was warned that I would consider linkspamming and vandalization to constitute his consent to reproduce our off-Wiki conversation here. Rather than do so immediately, I welcome any admin who wishes to investigate further to contact me and I will forward the e-mails (outgoing and incoming) as evidence. In the meantime, I have blocked 64.149.174.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 1 hour to stop the damage.

    The incident began on-Wiki, here. My original e-mailed reply, self-written and posted with my full consent, is here.

    RadioKirk talk to me 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Siddiqui and Qadianism

    User:Siddiqui, who apparently doesn't like the Ahmadi movement, created an article Qadianism in February as a POV fork of the article. An AfD was held in March, and the decision was to re-direct to Ahmadi. [137]. Three weeks later Siddiqui returned, undid the re-direct, and continued to edit the article. He now appears to be attempting to systematically remove any reference to Ahmadis from Wikipedia, and replace them with links to his own article, e.g. [138] [139] [140] As well, he's turned the article on the founder of the Ahmadi movement Mirza Ghulam Ahmad into a lengthy character assassination. I've seen issues with this editor before, in terms of refusing to understand or accept WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and these seem to be further examples of this troubling behavior. For now I've reverted the attempts, and protected that Qadianism page as a re-direct, as per the original AfD. Do others have any advice or other ideas? Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Qadianism was needed to counter the Ahmadi arguments. They were systematically removed and redirected. I was never consulted or informed of AfD. Thus the AfD and vote is controversal.
    Siddiqui 21:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you don't agree with an AfD doesn't mean it is "controversial"; the AfD was open for over a week. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I don't agree with AfD. But I was never informed of AfD and thus was not able to take part in it. Siddiqui 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Posts like this are going to get Wikipedia's phone tapped by the NSA...Oh, everyone is already phonetapped. Sorry.TTHelp 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We are already tapped by NSA if we use flagged words in conversation. Siddiqui 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I note also that the Ahmadi article makes it clear that "Qadiani" is a deliberately offensive term used by the opponents of the Ahmadi Muslim movement.[141] Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally, Muslims do not have family names in South Asia. In previous century the person was named after his city of residence. Thus we have people from Delhi added Dehlvi, from Lahore as Lahori etc. So Mirza Ghulam was called Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani since he was from Qadian.
    Siddiqui 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently he's only called that by people who are being deliberately offensive. His followers don't call him that. Britannica doesn't call him that, nor do they call his movement "Qadianism"[142]. Why call him be a deliberately offensive name that his followers don't use? Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is called Mirza Qadiani and his religion as Qadianism in Pakistan. You cannnot have one side of the story. There must be balance and counter arguments. The Qadianism page has the full constitutional amendments for the status this religion. That amendment is part of Pakistani consitution and you cannot just remove it.
    Siddiqui 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, do you think it's acceptable to call Muslims "Mohemmadans" and Islam "Mohammedanism"?[143] Google gets hundreds of thousands of hits for the terms. Would you consider it acceptable for me to create a new articles with those names to present "the other side", and then change all the links in Wikipedia to those articles? Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is very POV and not consistent with our content policies, Siddiqui: for example, the section about the brain diseases he was suffering from, and writing like: "This self proclaimed intoxicated lover of Holy Prophet became so much consumed with his love that he started having revelations (delusions of grandeur!) informing him that all those verses revealed in the glory of Holy Prophet Muhammad are now being revealed in Mirza Qadiani's honor." The article needs to reflect the views of third-party published sources, preferably scholarly sources, who have written about him. The Wikipedia editor's own opinion should not shine through, ideally. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's make an informed decision. We should keep Qadianism article. I will not add any controversal matter in the other Ahmadi related pages.
    Siddiqui 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's make a policy-based and common-sense decision. We'll keep the re-direct, as per AfD, and make especially sure that any information we add to any of these articles follows all of Wikipedia's content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is unacceptable. I was not informed of AfD. It is controversal. Do I have to create a new page ? Add that info in Religions in Pakistan page ? Siddiqui 22:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One doesn't really negotiate over WP:CON (although this is only a guideline, not policy), WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR; if they are unacceptable to you, then Wikipedia as a whole is likely unacceptable to or inappropriate for you (you are, I know, a valuable contributor, and so I don't mean to suggest that you leave; rather, I mean to suggest that you ought to bring your editing into line with the relevant policies, in order that you might continue to add to the encyclopedia). Even as it may have been decorous for the nominator to inform you as to the AfD, it certainly wasn't compulsory; in any case, I can't imagine that anything you might have adduced would have changed the minds of the many participants who offered cogent and logical reasons for merge. If, of course, you've new, verifiable, NPOV information, you are welcome to edit the page such that it's no longer a redirect and to recreate the article, with the proviso that if your article does not comport with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, reversion to the redirect will be immediate. Joe 22:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the Qadianism page [144]. It is balanced, it has Pakistan's consitutional amendment, links to pro-Ahmadi pages, links to anti-Ahmadi pages. What is controversal ? This is just misguided censorship. The Qadianism page does not have any controversal POV. Do I have to create a new page ?
    Siddiqui 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are any complaints about the current contents of Qadianism please present them. This redirect is censorship. There are hundreds of pages in Wikipedia that could fall into this broad category of redirection. This page contain the info that is not included by other pages. Siddiqui 04:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of Easter blocks

    At the beginning of last month, an anonymous user posted links to a website which attacks some of the editors on the Christianity article. The website, which I looked at at the time, was certainly an attack site, and was based on the deleted user page of User:John1838, but it did not have real names or photos. On 13 April, John reappeared as User:SimplePilgrim, and posted several more links. At this stage, the website had KHM03's photo, his real name, and a link to his website which gave information about his location, his wife, his family, etc. SimplePilgrim was reverted by SOPHIA, and a new user (with obvious connection to a user who has violated WP:SOCK more than once in the past) began to follow her around and repost the link. He was blocked indefinitely by an admin, and another admin almost simultaneously blocked for a month. SimplePilgrim was also blocked for a month.

    KHM03 left Wikipedia as a result. Creepy messages were sent to his talk page, mentioning his wife, children, and dog by name. In addition, a very inappropriate e-mail was sent to his superior.

    The background is long and complicated, and I don't want to clog up this noticeboard. So I have written an account here of the events that led to these Easter blocks. The blocks are due to expire very soon, and I would like some other admins to review them with a view to making them indefinite. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I support AnnH's request that the blocks be made indefinite. Material recently has been added to the off-Wiki page. I'd do the blocks myself, but since I am one of the admins named on the page I'd like someone uninvolved to take a look, and block if appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tempted to just indef-block both accounts myself. I would like to know what the admins who blocked for a month think about this? Jkelly 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that block should be indef. NSLE (T+C) at 08:29 UTC (2006-05-13)
    I tidied up some of the reposts after the inital AN/I report, initally looked into some of the unblock requests. I'd support any extensions to the blocks. --pgk(talk) 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SimplePilgrim has now been indef blocked by Freakofnurture, I've just re-applied the indef block to HK30. I generally make a strong policy of assuming good faith, if at all possible, but in this case I believe there is absolutely no need for these sort of editors on Wikipedia. Petros471 11:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/XLR8TION

    Can someone have a look at this user. There was a discussion a couple of weeks ago on Talk:Elvera Sanchez regarding a book on Sammy Davis, Jr. that claimed that his mother was not Puerto Rican but a New Yorker of Cuban descent, which was supported by her own relatives and contemporary documentation. Most editors agreed on the wording in both articles except the above who, despite hearing that Davis' mother had said she was not Puerto Rican which was accepted by Tony the Marine, the user still didn't believe it saying maybe she was senile... The user has now started continually making subtle POV changes with somewhat confrontational edit summaries to Elvera Sanchez and Sammy Davis, Jr. to try and weaken the book's credibility by adding "alleges" or "speculates" instead of "suggests" or "claims", ("alleges" is usually used in a negative context and "speculates" usually indicates that the claim is not backed up by solid evidence which is just not the case). Arniep 02:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    blatent hostility toawrds new user

    people seem intent on venting their blatent hostility on me, for some reason I can't figure at all, please won't someone help me!--~~~~ 02:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now where've I seen this signature before... some banned user, surely. Kimchi.sg 02:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    not sure what you're getting at, I'm a brand new user--~~~~ 02:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're a 'new' user who's been banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet or imitator of the permanently banned User:-Ril-. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You really shouldn't be so mean to new users--~~~~ 02:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That signature would be from User:-Ril- (not to be confused with User:Lir), the victim of signature fascism. Kotepho 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm not sure about the sig, but the userpage looks quite familiar, trying to remember who it was. Contributions seem familiar too: [145], [146], [147], etc. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should really read the text when I get an edit conflict. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What are all of you going on about?--~~~~ 02:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ril was the victim of sig fascism, banned as a return of CheeseDreams. Lir was around before my time. Guettarda 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember Lir. In fact, when Lar started to appear, I was wary. Heck, for a while any combination of three letters involving an L and an R was setting off the "Lir" alarm. Geogre 13:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is possibly the AN/I prankster again, considering that they posted to AN/I before actually being "harassed" by anyone. Ashibaka tock 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    203.122.215.44 (talk · contribs)

    Who is this a sockpuppet of?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs)

    That's not how things work on Wikipedia... if you want to do a sockpuppet check, you need to have both an extremely good reason to do so AND you need to put the request on the request for checkuser page, not here. Daniel Davis 07:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And you'd need to be referring to an account. IP's aren't "sockpuppets" of anything/anyone. Geogre 12:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thewolfstar sockpuppet blocked, please review

    I have blocked Lamb_of_god (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sock or possibly meatpuppet of community-banned user Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see this recently archived ANI thread for consensus that Thewolfstar had exhausted the community's patience. The reason I'm posting my sockban here for review is that CheckUser shows the two accounts not editing from the same ISP, so there's no technical evidence. (Of course technical evidence isn't needed iff the case is convincing without it.) After looking at the edits, I'm assuming they were input from a different location, by TWS herself or a friend. I'm asking people, and especially those already somewhat familiar with Thewolfstar's style and favored topics, to please take a look at the contribs of Lamb of god. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Crikey, I don't know why the Lamb of god template expands to "of god page moves" and "of god block log"--a little spooky, but I hope it doesn't matter. Bishonen | talk 09:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    This happens when there are spaces in the usernames - you can get rid of it by adding underscores, as I have now done. Haukur 09:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was afraid it meant God was on her side. Bishonen | talk 09:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    God is on all of our sides, not just the above mentioned user.A Voice In The Night 09:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should rather think it a little bit the sin of pride to name one's account agnus dei. Geogre 12:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (After a punch in the nose): the account exists solely to unblock TheWolfStar. It is thus a role account, and I support a block. However, I don't think that it is TheWolfStar herself. I have dark suspicions, as always, but I think that this user, so far, is on a mission, and that mission is to question/overturn a fairly well deliberated and in-process block. Geogre 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor, poor TWS and her ways and won'ts. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Navigatrix sockpuppet of User:Lou franklin

    I suspect that User:Navigatrix is a sockpuppet of the currently blocked User:Lou franklin, based on his contributions. Other opinions? What is typically done in these situations? ~MDD4696 13:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be, could not be. I could not say (and I have interacted a LOT with him). I think just keep an eye on it, and see what the next edits are. Kim van der Linde at venus 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After some more thought, no, I do not think it is him as the pages he requests unblock for etc are just not ones he has been editing at all. Kim van der Linde at venus 14:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I FIND THE TENOR UNSUITABLE FOR EDITING ANY ARTICLE.

    You are referring to my edit to [[matsuri]. What I did was remove an inappropriate html table of links that you added to an already link-heavy article. There were 14 external links in the article, and nine of them were in your table. You have been told many times that Wikipedia is not a link farm. Please notice that after you reverted my edit, an administrator immediately wiped out all of your links as well as several of the others. Your edits to matsuri are inappropriate to Wikipedia. One doesn't have to know anything about matsuri to see that or to correct it. Fnarf999 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

    (from this user's talk page)

    I really tried but i believe this is not suitable politically. How he includes "wipe out" sounds racist. I am not going to put more effort into this. I believe it is not much writing, but a serious mistake. He generally is very inpolite. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=52999025"