Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Visual archive cue: 121

Community ban on User:Hogeye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning User:haham hanuka

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

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

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

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

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

User:Socafan's edits

Would someone who hasn't already been involved with User:Socafan kindly take a look at Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This user has replaced all of the information that User:JzG was insisting be discussed prior to its inclusion in the article. In particular he's been adding information that amounts to "guilt by association" to the article and I have made efforts to remove such information in accord with WP:BLP but I have been repeatedly reverted. This version of the article is the pre-attempts at discussion version. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also please note Socafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s double personal attack here wherein he's referred to me as User:JzG's "crony". Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The alleged attack has already been discussed above. [5] [6] There is an article talk page to discuss article content disputes. Refusal to do so shows there is no intention to find a consensus. Instead there seems to be a desire to silence another user. Socafan 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From looking at this editor's contributions one get's the impression that he's on a bit of a "doping" smear campaign when he makes uncited and unsourced edits like this one on Santiago Botero and this one on Floyd Landis. (→Netscott) 03:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing without sources, the allegations are well known, suppressing them here is POV, and claiming others do "smear campaigns" is a personal attack. Socafan 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I, at least, am no targuing for suppression of allegations. On the other hand, to be perfectly blunt, your phrasing of a lot of things is pretty biased. The goal is not merely a presentation of all relevant facts, but a neutral one. Your additions have fallen pretty far afield of that one. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome to improve wordings and discuss it at talk, and JzG was welcome to do so all the time, too. Thank you for unprotecting the article and telling JzG that protecting in his preferred version is abuse of admin powers. Socafan 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again I find your characterisation of the dispute al but unrecognisable. When I said that the content had a place in the article but needed to be stated in carefully neutral terms per WP:BLP that is exactly what I meant. If you think that this [7] is an approppriately neutral edit then you have a lot to learn. Just zis Guy you know? 07:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your above comment in no way replies to what was written before. You have been warned for abuse of admin power, please stop it now, as well as your condescending tone. Socafan 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad protection on Lance Armstrong

Could another administrator look at the protection of Lance Armstrong and consider reversing it? It appears that JzG reverted the article to the version he thinks best meets WP:BLP, and then protected it. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I already posted this above. Just zis Guy you know? 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourced information was removed without discussion, even the POV-tag, which should never been done before there is consensus. Please block this user for his abuse of powers. Socafan 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

False. There was discussion (or at least I attempted discussion, your refusal to take part or even acknowledge the validity of the underlying premise notwithstanding). The "sourced information", the sources of which are not uniformly reliable, was presented in a heavily slanted way, a point you have yet to accept despite it having been made by every single person who has so far looked at the case, including those Arbitrators who have commented. Even the people who think I acted wrongly in some respects appear to be unanimous in agreeing that there was a problem with what you were trying to add to the article. When people do not accept your arguments the solution is to find better arguments, not to repeat the same arguments only louder. Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You did remove the POV-tag. Twice. You refused to discuss the issues specifically at the article talk page, instead made wholesale reverts and spammed, reverted and blocked my talk page. In case you have doubts about sources discuss it at the article talk page, not here. An admin has undone your block and warned you for misconduct. Please follow your own advise and find arguments instead of abusing your powers. Socafan 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As with your edits to the Armstrong article and most of your descriptions of this dispute so far, I find your characterisation of Phil's comments unrecognisable. I was not "warned for misconduct", Phil agreed that your edits were problematic but pointed out, as one experienced admin to another less experienced, that I had made a mistake. As the discussions show without any ambiguity at all, I accepted his judgment and fully endorsed his subsequent actions; had any such comments been made here (where I posted each action at the time for peer-review; Phil's comment here was some hours after my own inviting review) I would have accepted them in similar vein. I also asked where I went wrong, and have discussed with him whether there is a more effective forum for peer-review of admin decisions. If you want to paint that as vindicating your actions then you are, I'm afraid, deluding yourself. Just zis Guy you know? 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You did remove a POV-tag twice, Phil warned you for abusing your admin power: I think most, though not all of the problems with Socafan's additions are in the quality of his writing, not the content. He's not really adding any material that shouldn't be cited... ... it's very, very bad to protect a page to a preferred version. (Note "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." and "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." "Note also that the protection policy does not support page protection to enforce BLP, and that protecting a page to deal with a user who has recently brought an arbcom case against you is TERRIBLE practice.. Now please leave it. Socafan 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson reverting Kitty May Ellis stuff

Wjhonson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Hi guys, as a result of this deletion review, I changed my closure of this AfD (and deleted "Kitty May Ellis") and removed all quotations of her works from various articles. Wjhonson is reverting my edits. Now, I've already warned the user about revert-warring, but since I don't want to get into this revert war myself without knowing whether I'm in the right, I thought I'd make a note here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A deletion review that was not consensus. My article was a professionally-writen, complete and thoroughly-cited biography. A few attackers kept stating over and over the sources weren't verifiable, which is incorrect. Every source I used for the statements is verifiable and previously published in a reliable source. The deletion *review* came to an incorrect conclusion and there is no reason I should be penalized for trying to expand, valid and useful content on wikipedia. All the sources I used were posted to the article, and the quality was far superior, in my opinion, to the majority of biographies on here. And again every source is verifiable, the attackers took no attempt to even try to verify my sources. Wjhonson 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now, for the first time, been given the opportunity to read the this deletion review. I go to bed with KEEP, I wake up and everything I worked on for the past week — every single quote, every reference to this very notable person has been wiped by Deathphoenix. The sources are on wikisource, a sister project, and have been accepted there as documents of historical interest. Aside from that, I have posted portions of those quotes to various genealogical and history boards for the various communities and names mentioned, and each has expressed great interest in this source. And yet, one of the remarks on the review is that this person is not notable. It's relatively hard to reconcile the two positions. One person, a descendent of Chief Joseph wrote with profuse thanks that there is yet another source on her ancestor. The mere fact that a person is not universally known, is not a sufficient reason for stating that person is not *notable*. The notability page I would add, states that a person is also notable if they *should* be more widely known. If nothing else, this person should pass on that criteria. Wjhonson 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have some experience with genealogy. What are the links at wikisource so I can look it over? Never mind. This belongs on Wjohnson's talk page and DRV. Thatcher131 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment User:Wjhonson's conduct, the DRV should either be properly closed (and the old version possibly userfied?) as the closing admin has reverted his prior decision, or the history be restored until the DRV has run its course. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The DRV has been closed in favor of deletion. Without getting into a debate about the merits of the deletion, in the interests of tidying up, I'd like to remove all the redlinks to the now-(re)deleted article. I'm afraid, however, that another edit war will ensue. Any advice would be appreciated. Katr67 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Skull 'n' Femurs evading block with an army of sockpuppets

Can an admin please check out [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Imacomp_{2nd)] for the evidence of user:Skull 'n' Femurs (a banned user by arbcom) and user:imacomp's army of sock which have been tormenting freemasonry. Also please see the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Imacomp against Imacomp to see the huge amount of problems we have had with him, not including his army of socks. Chtirrell 03:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

it's user:Skull 'n' Femurs, check your spelling. and please sign your posts with ~~~~ so that we may see who is posting them without looking in the page history. ~Chris ^{(squirrels!!)} 11:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the errors. I've fixed them. An oversight on my part :) Chtirrell 03:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu is back

Just popped up as NightmareChase27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Circeus 02:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the user Leyasu is in England and the NightmareChase account is in America, it seems somewhat ridiculous. Circues has also banned people from Brazil, Argentina and France claiming they are Leyasu as well. This is getting beyond a joke with this admin. As unless Leyasu is mystically hoping all around the globe, then Circues is abusing his admin powers. After checking his contributions as well, it isnt just articles relating to Leyasu that he is banning people from editing when they make an edit that doesnt agree with his own POV on a subject. Someone needs to do something about this admin. Metal Maiden 676 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the above user's second edit. Isopropyl 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum... My Leyasu sense is tingling. Metal Maiden 676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is displaying an incredible knowledge of the history of Heavy Metal pages (Even I have no idea where exactly is the poll she is refering to here). Also, MetalsMainLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similar username, has been blocked as a sockpuppet back in June. Observe also that this new user can already tell who blocked another user she apparently has no connection with. I rest my case. Circeus 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And you know the locations of these editors ... how? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They're not IPs. Try a checkuser with some of the registered accounts that are suspected sockpuppets of Leyasu and some of the IPs Leyasu has been blocked for using on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu#Log of blocks and bans. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Because of the increased activity from (81|86).*.*.* anons today, I have put in a new request for a checkuser involving Leyasu, MetalsMainLady, NightmareChase27, Metal Maiden 676, and several of the IPs that I think Leyasu has used recently. I have posted the request at WP:RFCU and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

I ask for unblock on User:Panarjedde. The indefinite blocking was decided by User:Llywrch, who told me to come here.--151.47.76.121 01:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let your original 24 hour block expire, don't create sockpuppets, and those sockpuppets won't get banned. There is no reason to unblock Panarjedde, you were only using it to get around your original block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I told him to go to Wikipedia:Changing username to change his username, because I placed an indefinite block on the user name he wanted to use. He wants to use a new user name because I put a 24-hour block on his original one, Panairjdde; an Admin there is welcome to perform the necessary acts to change matters if they felt I behaved unreasonably. (Although I advise anyone so inclined to research his history of behavior both before & after the block. I also told him not to petition Tony Sideway or David Gerard for help, because they aren't as nice as I am. My apologies if he has ignored my advice & contacted them.)

BTW, I had to block this IP address because it was used for edits to Wikipedia unrelated to the business of his original block. Why don't you stop digging your hole deeper? -- llywrch 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - Since he says he closed his "Panairjdde" account, I put an indef block on that one. He has also stated he is going to leave Wikipedia countless times -- yet keeps coming back. Any Admin who believes he will stay on Wikipedia -- & trusts him to make useful contributions -- is welcome to undo those blocks. But if you do this, I expect you to mentor this user (or find one for him) & assume responsibility for his actions. -- llywrch 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said countless times, User:Panairjdde account is closed. Nobody can logon & it is no longer "mine" or of anybody else (now also User:Panairjdde is blocked indefinitely). My account is User:Panarjedde, and is blocked indefinitely, not for 24 hours. Why are you blocking my account indefinitely? What is the reason?

Furhtemore, User:Llywrch blocked two accounts indefinitely. On what basis?--151.47.99.159 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you have also said several times that you are leaving Wikipedia, you obviously don't need two accounts. If you simply meant that you are closing one account, then it is clear that you did this only to avoid the block for disruption. Although I originally blocked the second account because it appeared you were misusing a sockpuppet, your language convinces me that the second possiblity -- that you are avoiding my block -- is more likely. The block follows the person, not the account. I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Wikipedia for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption -- convince another Admin to lift it.

Panairjdde, there's far more to life & the Internet than Wikipedia. Use this time & find out. -- llywrch 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Wikipedia for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption — If the penalty for "disruption" (and you have yet to show me where this disruption was, right?) is 24 hours long, why the block is indefinitely long?

convince another Admin to lift it. Yes, like I do not know that everywhere is written that and admin should be careful when unblocking other admins' blocks! This matter has been here for some days, yet it is still a matter between you and me.

And, please, please, stop this patronizing tone with me! altought I originally tought you were simply an over-zealous admin, your language convinces me that you actually enjoy your "power", exercising it here, maybe because...--151.47.83.98 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(delayed response) It's very simple: as Zoe wrote above, sit out for 24 hours, explicitly tell us which user name you are going to use, & as long as you behave you will not be blocked. -- llywrch 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: A new User:LimWRtacCHsua appeared yesterday, making edits to many of the same articles Panairjdde had, & the same edits. When I asked him directly whether he was Panairjdde, I failed to get a straight answer -- but LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case. I can put 2 & 2 together; account also blocked. The name id also suspicious, BTW. -- llywrch 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have problems: "LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case"?! You put on my talk page a link to all this matter, and I am oddly aware?! Next time you don't want people to learn something, don't show them!--151.47.115.171 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:True tibet

Transferred from WP:AIV:

True tibet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See talk page - that should be self-explaniatory. Politically motivated username with derogatory spam about Wikipedia on it.  Killfest2  09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we are allowed to be POV on our own talk pages, not sure about the username. abakharev 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if it's inflammatory (which the Nepal incident is)  Killfest2  09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I have immense empathy for Tibetans in their current situation, the problem this user has is the same we all have with history in that to a large extent it's written by the winning/dominant side, put this alongside the need to be able cite verifable sources for data and I'm not surprised by the views expressed on their talk page. --Alf ^melmac 09:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this username clearly refers to a political dispute which will produce problems no matter what. I've blocked him indefinitely for having an inappropriate username and offered him to get a new one and contribute constructively. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs):RfC

Is anybody here willing to help me fill a RfC agains JzG here? There are no pro-forma warnings on Wikipedia. There are warnings or no warnings. Pro-forma warnings are just a form of bullying. After I have proven, that the original reason for warning was removed even before the warning was placed, JzG is searching for new reasons (see his "it is still unacceptable.." comments) or calling the warning pro-forma. Now he is joking about the "cabal", disparaging my comments and complaints and clearly trying to irritate me with those comments. Azmoc 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You got a little warning. Lets order Global Thermonuclear War! --mboverload@ 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No way. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I got friggin BLOCKED for reasons that I thought were baseless. All I did was calmly ask for comment. Calm down. I know you feel wronged but in the end it's just a warning. --mboverload@ 13:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, if you got friggin BLOCKED for nothing, it is wrong. That's why I proposed the easy-gain-easy-lose adminship on the Village Pump. Azmoc 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you consider Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to be an entire collection of pro-forma warnings? I would... -- ChrisO 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this even appropriate on this page? You've already made your complaint, now you want to escalate to an Rfc and you're issuing a blanket invitation for someone to second you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard he punched a baby too. KWH 06:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this particular case, but the attitude to shrug off complaints about abuse of adminship with derogatory comments and mock about "the cabal" is something I know from JzG, too, and I think it is in no way helpful to resolve disputes. An admin should know better that special rights come with a special responsibility. Socafan 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [8], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: [9]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I share your concern. I do think Guy Montag should have discussed the move on the talk page before making it. Controversial articles are on many watchlists. Fred Bauder 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Newyorkattention and sockpuppet

Minor problem: New user Newyorkattention (talk · contribs) put an plug for something called "The Attention Store" (4 hits in Google) into Attention economy. That was their first edit, and seemed to be an attempt at advertising. So I reverted it. The same material was then reinserted by 66.108.106.207 (talk · contribs), so that's probably a sockpuppet. --John Nagle 17:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: anon user has begun a dialogue with this user. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Marionette Accounts

The *Marionette accounts seem to be proliferating. As soon as one is blocked, another pops up. They have gone from User:AnkletMarionette to User:WhiteAnkletMarionette toUser:ZaffreAnkletMarionette and everything in between. Obviously blocking the accounts is not working to address the issue. Perhaps something else can be done. ThoughtControl 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a checkuser to get the IP or IPs then contact the ISP, most have an acceptable use policy. --pgk^(talk) 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We begun blocking them since we thought they were PoolGuy, and later on, the socks kept coming and the "prevent account creation" thingie is not working (I think), and all keep on wanting some admin action reversed. I agree, contact the ISP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Those flags have no meaning for named accounts, though autoblocks should still have the same effect... --pgk^(talk) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

When I asked, I was told that the block settings on a username block would not affect the settings of the autoblock; autoblocks continue to be full blocks in all cases. I've not tested this, I'm just going with what I was told. In a related note, it appears to be SBC (formerly Southwestern Bell, now AT&T in what looks like an attempt to resurrect Ma Bell) pool IPs, rather than AOL, so block away. Essjay (Talk) 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

These two unblock requests appear to be coming from various AOL IPs - here's one: [10] and another [11]. These might be a troll jumping on the bandwagon though. I personally have blocked:

User:ZaffreAnkletMarionette User:XanthicAnkletMarionette User:MaroonAnkletMarionette User:LapisLazuli User:LapisLazuliAnkletMarionette User:KhakiAnkletMarionette User:JadeGreenAnkletMarionette User:HunterGreenAnkletMarionette User:GreenAnkletMarionette User:EcruAnkletMarionette User:AnkletMarionette User:BlueAnkletMarionette

And I'm sure that's not all of them. If you see these though, please block ASAP, they start making edits right away. pschemp | talk 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at User:MasterOfColor, as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked that too. --pgk^(talk) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:CarrotSoup abakharev 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was, perhaps it is best to try something else entirely. Blocking the accounts just creates more and more IPs that are autoblocked. At some point this has got to be affecting other Wikipedians, because it does not seem to impact this user. Maybe someone could find out what he wants and get the issue resolved - something seems unresolved. That way Admin time wouldn't be spent looking for the accounts, researching the accounts, and blocking them. This can't be the only way to address users. ThoughtControl 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We already know what Poolguy/Marionette wants. He wants to use multiple accounts abusively. He can't. The issue will be resolved by making him go away. That's it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right. The PoolGuy account was around for years without any problems. What makes you think he wants to be abusive? Sure lots of Admins have blocked those accounts, but he seems very consistent in bringing up one issue of improper administrative action. Perhaps someone could figure out that resolving that would resolve the issue. Seems to me the inappropriate block, inconsistent with a written Wikipedia policy is the issue. Why is that ignored? GarageDoorOpener 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

because you are a sock. Duh. *zap* pschemp | talk 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The disappointing thing is trying to explain Wikipedia policy to Admins. However, here goes:

"There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."

"I would say that multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny.[1] (2003)"

This is a quote from Mr. Wales on the WP:SOCK page. To translate, users can have multiple accounts, so long as they don't use it to violate policy. GoldToeMarionette was a multiple account, however it did not violate policy. This is what is actually written down as Wikipedia policy. Please explain how this can possibly be unclear to those with Admin authority. I am not an Admin, and it makes complete sense to me. ContributerGreen 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are so obviously a sock, why do you even bother? pschemp | talk 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. I would think that would mean something to Admins too. Why do you want to make a user who was a good but small contributor go away? How is that good for the project? QualityCounts 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting, these users were very anxious to comment and contribute when it is all about blocking. When thought is challenged and forced to think about the policy and its application these Admins avoid it. They think it is best to just block, because blocking makes problems go away. Blocking does not solve the fundamental problem. I need someone to deal with the fundamental problem. Does anyone here have the capacity to address it? A few of you have proven you can block an account, congratulations. Now, try to actually address the issue.

Unfortunately, someone will block this account too, thinking that will make a difference. How disappointing, that will be the limit of their Administrator capacity. Instead, hopefully someone will rise to address the issue. Anyone? It just takes communicating, not blocking. ReadingRabbit 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The probem has been repeatedly described to you, it went through an arbcom case, and since neither was to your liking you ignored it. Communication takes two sides, one to listen something you've repeatedly refused to do. At this point there is little more to be said. --pgk^(talk) 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that Nlu refuses to cite the abusive use of sockpuppets. Nobody is in disagreement that sockpuppets were used. Nlu needs to realize that being a sockpuppet is only illegal if it is used for policy violation, none of which he can cite. TealAnkleMarionette 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Devonshire

Carrying this over from User talk:Theresa knott, during a routine checkuser of vandal-account creations (in order to discover and block the IP, halting the creations) I discovered that User:Conrad Devonshire has been creating malicious vandal usernames for some time now. A small listing of said usernames is listed on Theresa's talk page; a relevant, and particularly indicative, snippet is:

04:57 User talk:Gwernol (2 changes; Page history) [Conrad Devonshire (2×)]

m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Some usernames you might consider blocking...)

m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (Some usernames you might consider blocking...)

04:42 (User creation log) [Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!!; A erection lasting longer than four hours; FickenKont; Foot-long penis; Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong?; Vandalbot Alpha]

04:42 (cur; last) . . Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong? (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:40 (cur; last) . . Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!! (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:39 (cur; last) . . FickenKont (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:38 (cur; last) . . Foot-long penis (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:37 (cur; last) . . A erection lasting longer than four hours (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:36 (cur; last) . . Vandalbot Alpha (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:34 User talk:Conrad Devonshire (diff; hist) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Brfx)

I reported the matter to the Arbitration Committee via thier private mailing list, in order to get a sanity check (though it's very obvious as checkuser results go) and for advice on how to proceed. I also requested that Conrad email me urgently; instead of doing so, he responded with a curt response that he did not pass out his email. Theresa made a similar request (as an Arbitrator) and was met repeatedly with a similar result, before being reluctantly provided with an address. His response, on her talk page, was less than satisfactory.

At this point, he's made it public, and the appropriate avenue to decide what to do is here. I count 18 usernames on three IPs (there are dozens more, those 18 were just handy); they are not, as he suggests, dopplegangers. Indeed, he warned one of them shortly after using it to vandalize: [12]. Sadly, this sort of thing is all to common; this is at least twice in the last week that I've come across otherwise legitimate contriubutors engaging in vandalism via sockpuppets.

Ideas on what to do with Conrad are greatly appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is he creating vandal accounts so he can revert it himself and look like a great vandal fighter? Is it all obvious or is some of it insidious? Thatcher131 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he won't do it again, now that he knows everyone else knows.....is it worth punishing him with a block for something did in the past and probably won't do again? I don't know what prentitive measures arbcom could do anyway.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, were these accounts created on his IP or while he was logged in? I thought you couldn't create an account while logged in.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about this... but a post on ANI is got to be rather punishing in and of itself given the content we're seeing. Conrad Devonshire'll likely never hear the end of this. (→Netscott) 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, one gets the impression that you might be obligated to do quite a bit of work corresponding to all of these sockpuppets. If that is indeed the case then if for no other reason that alone should merit a good long block. (→Netscott) 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My thought was along the same lines. While posting to ANI might be punishment enough (depending on how badly he wants to be seen as a good wikipedian) I would rather see probation at the very least. However, only a checkuser would have the ability to monitor his probation (Essjay, Mackensen, and the members of Arbcom). So I say it should be up to them. Is there a checkuser willing to vouch for him? Thatcher131 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Responding to a few things (I went to dinner and the thread exploded!):

• As much as you'd think it wouldn't happen, it's not uncommon to see someone vandalizing and then cleaning up thier own mess. I don't know if it's some kind of guilt, or if it is because they want to elevate thier public image, but it happens too frequently.
• He may or may not do it again; I guarantee if he does it again he'll do it in a way that is much harder to detect. Rarely does ignoring the problem cause it to go away; it just cases it to hide deeper beneath the surface.
• You can create accounts while logged in, but it causes them to be logged under your name, as in "User:A created User:B" rather than just "created User:B". If you log out before doing it, or do it in a separate browser, then it doesn't do that. This is not a case of "someone else was on the IP at the time"; dynamic IPs do sometimes change, but they don't switch to a vandal for twenty minutes and then back to you, as shown above.
• There is a reasonable amount of work that goes into this, but it's what I'm here to do. My concern is that further problems be prevented, as each one of these accounts takes admin time to block, often multiple admin's time as they all simultaneously block, and the time of others to tag the accounts. Additionally, it takes checkuser time, as at least one checkuser (me) is actively checking accounts from these types of sprees in order to block the IPs and prevent further damage.
• I've yet to see any response from him on the subject, and certainly no remorse. Indeed, he has been very uncooperative so far, and I don't forsee a change in that. As I indicated above, I think if he's learned anything, it's to be smarter about his sockpuppetry. I'm not willing to spend the next year checking up on him constantly, and I doubt any of the other checkers have the time.

Beyond seeing that no further damage is done to Wikipedia, I'd like to know the community's take on this, and what they feel should be done; as I've said, I find it all too often, and if the community is unconcerned, then I will just keep it to myself from now on and not waste my or other's time with public reports. Essjay (Talk) 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should happen to Conrad, but I'd like to voice that things like this definitely need to be reported. These actions are damaging to Wikipedia, take up Wikipedia resources, and consume administrator time. An ANI thread is the very least we can do, and whatever response is decided to be taken, hopefully actions like this will be greatly discouraged in the future. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is definitely disruptive behavior, and a fairly long block is warranted. Enough time, for instance, that Conrad is forced to take a break from WP and, if he chooses to become active again later, will perhaps reevaluate the point of doing so. His behavior is very at-odds with our goal of creating an encyclopedia here. Mangojuice^talk 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. how long is fairly long? pschemp | talk 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not less than 2 weeks or otherwise some amount per sock (like 4 hours) added up. (→Netscott) 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've alerted the user in question. We shouldn't assume that he'll find the thread, it's better to be frank with him and let him know.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ulp. I'm feeling a little uncomfortable about a remark of mine here: I start to think that WoW (and the like) and certain WP editors need each other as virus writers and virus "protection" merchants need each other. Which was written largely for CD's, er, benefit. He replied (I hope to the comment as a whole, and not merely this part): "I am beginning to see things your way." -- Hoary (mightily bored by vandals and trolls), 03:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Has he made any statement that this behavior will stop? He should in my opinion be blocked at least until he does so; certainly there is precedent for that -- for example the User:Wonderfool case from months and months ago. (Yes; such a promise is made under duress and may have little real value; but it's all we can do.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - I admit that it is true that I have been creating accounts. I am not going to play dumb or lie to you about it. I will explain, but not rationalise my reasons for doing so. One of my reasons is that which was mentioned, that it would give me an oppourtunity to show my willingness to fight vandalism by reporting them myself. Another is that I suffer from certain mental problems including schizophrenia. One symtom of my mental problems is that at times, certain thoughts which I find particularily inappropriate or unpleasant inter my mind and my mind cannot let go of them. By creating accounts with names that reflect these thoughts, it in a way has helped to isolate them from my mind. It is difficult for me to explain how this works, but doing so helped to relieve my mind of unpleasant thoughts. I also created accounts and/or made vandal edits in a few cases simply to see how efficiently Wikipedia would respond. But, as I said, I am not trying to rationalise what I have done. Though I mentioned having mental problems, I do have control over my own actions and could have found other ways to deal with my problems. And as for wanting to show my willingness to fight vandals, I should have done so by actually fighting vandals rather than inventing vandals to fight. I apologise for what I have done and promise to discontinue it immediately. Please note however that my contributions testify to my desire to be a respectable editor. I regret that I have perhaps permenantly damaged my reputation as a Wikipedia editor, but accept that I am to blame for it. I believe that I do deserve a block for this and shall take a break from editing whether I receive one or not.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was very big of Conrad to come clean with the above, and I commend him for that. It must be quite difficult to have all of this aired under the public eye of ANI. However, it's pretty clear that his actions were egregious, and a punitive block in the range of one week is very much in order. -- Samir धर्म 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Conrad for your explanation and apology. It shows maturity. Personally I feel that you do need a block but I will not apply it myself as I am an arbitrator and I have been acting as an arbitrator in this incident. I feel that if I block you, the rest of the community will be reluctant to disagree with me and i don't want that to happen. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week per the above, pending further consensus here. -- Samir धर्म 08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block.--MONGO 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Echoed. Conrad is taking a Wikibreak; this is a good idea. Something tells me that the embarrassment will be enough to ensure no repeat. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Except we don't do punative blocks, right? - brenneman 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron here. I have followed this case carefully and see no reason for a block in the circumstances pertaining now. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how our wikisociety functions. Would a block be preventative if in enforcing one other users will not engage in such behavior (or alternatively if they are currently engaged in similar behavior now, stop)? I understand the logic for no block... but this individual has made quite a bit of work that others are forced to deal with. This should be a citable example for what to do in the future. (→Netscott) 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's another excellent reason to not block--some people might be tempted to block in similar circumstances in future. --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you and Brenneman are correct. To a certain extent at this point whether this user is blocked or not may be immaterial as he's decided to not edit on his own for some time... and if he indeed abides by that then a block'd be redundant (if we're talking strictly about preventative in the sense of this one user). I think in a similar situation in the future Essjay or an ArbCom member should be inclined to just immediately block and note the reasoning in the block log and then proceed to inform the community of the back story and if given an explanation and promise not to continue that is on an equivalent level as Conrad Devonshire's, then subsequently lift the block. Essentially in my view some sort of an easily verifiable history (ie: block log note) should accompany such behavior, no? (→Netscott) 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I find creating multiple inappropriate usernames a blockable offense whether it's preventive or not. It's something explicitly forbidden policy and caused multiple people a lot of work. Oh yeah, don't forget to block the all the accounts except for the main one. If he can control himself now he's shown he can own up, I have no problem if he edits in a week's time. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  My approach to this is that I'd support a block if he presented an ongoing risk to the encyclopedia. While there might be an argument for blocking as a deterrent, this isn't compatible with our blocking policy. Moreover if we were seen to block someone who came clean and promised to stop, it would almost certainly deter other editors from coming clean about antisocial activities. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with the principles of Tony's reasoning (but I have no comments on the specific case at hand). Haukur 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think you can call this "coming clean". From Theresa's talk page I see first he claims it was a joke and dopplegangers, then insisting on not being treated as a villain until uncontrovertable evidence is provided. Only once shown he has been caught red-handed does he admit it and promise not to do it again. NoSeptember 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I think Conrad has resolved this quite well by taking a voluntary wikibreak. In the circumstances, I wouldn't object to an unblock with the annotation that the user is taking a short voluntary wikibreak in view of his bad faith actions. A block is also okay, but I think it's a little worrying in the circumstances where he has finally come completely clean. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. I reckon Tony's right. Is there any preventive action required? Sounds like there isn't. Is Conrad generally a problem editor? I'd say not, from an admittedly quick review of his contribs and Talk. Conrad has taken his punishment like a man and taken a voluntary Wikibreak; if he wants that to be enforced to avoid temptation then fine, otherwise it seems a bit - well, vindictive. Just zis Guy you know? 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am unblocking, based mostly on the range of opinions expressed in this thread (my gut feelings steer me to believe that punative blocks do have some utility). But when Tony and Aaron agree on something, it's probably a good rule of thumb that that something should be done. NoSeptember -- I agree the "coming clean" is unevaluatable at the least. Still, he'll pose just as much threat a week from now as now, so I don't believe the community agreeing to lift this one-week block is harmful. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that I've wasted my time a) checking up on the problem, b) sorting it out, c) notifying the Arbitration Committee, d) trying to resolve it with the user, e) reporting it here, and f) thinking anybody would care. There *is* a side to this besides "Oh poor Conrad, he's been naughty but we shouldn't hold it against him": There's the dozens of administrators and other RC patrolers that have been affected, there are the users who have been impersonated and/or attacked in these usernames, and there is the time of the Arbitration Committee any myself that has been wasted dealing with this. I think NoSeptember hit it on the head: He *didn't* come clean until he was *forced* to, and displayed defiance right up until he posted here with a miraculous change of heart, deep understanding of his conduct, and profound sorrow for the trouble he's caused. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced in the least; I think I understand now why so many of the longer-term checkusers have stopped doing this sort of thing: The end result is that nobody wants to do anything about it, and you've wasted several hours (about six, in this case) dealing with it. Essjay (Talk) 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In my opinion Conrad Devonshire is on final warning. I think that's enough of a result. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, why did you not just immediately block? (→Netscott) 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect for the same reason I generally don't immediately block when I find anomalies doing CheckUser: it's best to have another party verify your suspicions before going public with serious accusations. If I, as a CheckUser, block sua sponte based solely on CheckUser evidence, and someone complains, I am in the situation of having to justify my block with the reason "I have evidence that supports this block, but I cannot show it to you". This doesn't go over well. Having the evidence reviewed by other trustworthy individuals at least results in a united front before a block goes in, with multiple seemingly reasonable people who will stand behind it. If the other people won't stand behind it, then it would have been a bad idea to block in the first place, eh?

I view my role, when using CheckUser, as that of a security officer. It's my job to examine the evidence and report on what I find to others to decide what to do as a result of my findings. It's a way to increase accountability for a position which carries a great deal of trust and responsibility. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your fine detailed response makes good sense Kelly Martin thanks for sharing the logic there. What is your opinion on how Conrad Devonshire's case should be handled? (→Netscott) 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I believe prevention extends beyond the individual user concerned, the message we seem to be sending out here is that provided you apologise when caught then no problem. --pgk^(talk) 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the message. Wikipedia is extremely generous with second chances. Unfortunately, consideration of the effects on other users is often neglected (as Essjay pointed out, or as in the case of the unblocking of Blu Aardvark and MSK). By unblocking him are we sending the signal that we are more interested in rehabilitating one part-time vandal than in respecting the efforts of dozens of vandal fighters? A long block or outright ban would send the message that his disruptive activities and their negative effects on others so outweigh his positive contributions that we would rather not have him around anymore. (On the other hand such a ban would be largely symbolic as there is no practical way of keeping Conrad from continuing to create more abusive accounts--he just couldn't get "credit" for reverting them anymore.) Thatcher131 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that is really the message, nor do I think Essjay has wasted his time, although I see where he is coming from. Bear in mind that blocking isn't the only consequence in play in this case; for example, Conrad Devonshire clearly had ambitions to become an admin and realistically that will not happen now. Alerting the community to this kind of fraud is very much a concrete result in of itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that if you apologise and stop then all should be forgiven. Call me a cynic but we only have his word that he is taking a wikibreak. For all we know he is happily editing (and trolling for that matter) with yet another sock. I don't think unblocking him was the best thing to do, it gives a rather wishy washy effect. A week was a very short block in the first place IMO and it should have stood unless there was overwhelming support here to undo it - which there wasn't. Having said that, what's done is done. I think he needs to be carefully watched and if he shows any sign of his past bad behaviour he needs to be community banned. If OTOH he stops fucking about he should be completely forgiven. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Can't say I'm pleased with the way this has evolved. We have a user who has made multiple vandal-only accounts, and has attempted to improve his cred by "reporting them". He also did not come clean when first approached about it. Heartfelt apologies or not, there must be something said on a community front that such behaviour is unacceptable. I think that entails a block. Call it punitive if you want. There was no consensus to undo the action -- Samir धर्म 22:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still support the block. Not to discredit the otherwise good work of Conrad, the rules need to be applied evenly to all. Essjay did the right thing. Conrad isn't necessarily eliminated from becoming an admin someday. Enduring a week long block and then returning to solid editing for a period of time will suffice.--MONGO 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'm restoring the week-long block, based on the evolving input here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment that we don't do punative blocks. We clearly do however do preventative blocks. We can support a block here while at the same time remembering that we're not "empowered" and don't hand out spankings. - brenneman ^{L} 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to register my view ... I don't believe it when someone "reveals" that they have various mental illnesses as an excuse for their actions. It's too convenient. If they've been open about it from the get-go, and then later on they do something that might be a result of their illness I understand, but magically becoming schizophrenic when it's revealed you've made over a dozen abusive sockpuppets is too much. We're being played. --Cyde↔Weys 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well to be fair he does state on his user page that he has suffered from mental problems [13]. 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Journalist (talk · contribs)

I removed a spam link at University of Toronto and this user bit off my head, and sniped at me for doing so. Ardenn 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then he made a personal attack. Ardenn 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the "personal attack", but nothing preceding it. One part: I really dont want to fight (as amusing as I find your childish demeanor), so the most I can say is "have a good night". I wonder why a "childish demeanor" would tend to make one want to fight; here, as in his/her lack of apostrophes, I sense confusion or perhaps simple sleepiness. You're being wished a good night, so "AGF" and have a good night. -- Hoary 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You did the right thing in reverting the link as it is spam. I'd just de-escalate with Orane, who is a long time editor and an administrator here; I'm certain he wishes you no ill will -- Samir धर्म 07:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What does being an admin have to do with it? Do they have different standards when communicating with editors? 208.42.140.43 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They should be held to a higher standard of civility, but they also get slightly more credibility, as they have been vetted rather publically, and humiliatingly in some cases. The key was "long time," in the above: i.e. over a prolonged period of time, this editor has not been a source of trouble nor administrative controversy. That said, everyone gets cranky and grumpy at some point or another, and calling for others to review behavior is not wrong. Geogre 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stormie (talk · contribs)

I recently made a few edits to external links of articles, and an administrator kept reverting the edits, even though they were relevent per [Wikipedia:External_Links]. Could you please talk to them about making the right judgement whether my links should be on there? Thanks. Zealotgi 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm gonna have to agree with Stormie on this. You appear to be linking to a single website on multiple articles. Reviews don't make good external links. Especially when they don't come from reliable newspapers or known film/music critics. This is just a site where random people can write reviews (be it collaboratively). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, but there were a few, such as a biography on Hulk Hogan, that would have made good external links. Is it okay if I post it on the talk page and see what the community thinks about it first before posting it? Zealotgi 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

To whom it may concern,

I would like to bring to your attention what I consider heavy handedness on the part of an administrator. Please reference the discussion in relationship to myself and SCEhardT The dispute relates to my uploading an image, a mistake I admit but as I explained to the administrator a light-hearted yet admittedly misguided attempt to add some levity to a topic others were becoming too serious and combative about. In response I received an aggressive message on my talk page threatening me with blocking and the direction not to remove said message. I went ahead and did so as I believed a more civil response was approriate and made this clear to said admin. But again I received an even more aggressive uncivil message. It is unacceptable for Administrators to act in this way. Their intentions may be good but their arrogant attitude is ridiculous. I do not want to be blocked merely on the whim of an administrator who decided to take an overly aggressive response to my actions. Thank-you for your time.

AntonioBu 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

From user's userpage: Come join me in my mission to de-Americanise wikipedia or should I say wikipaedia. Help end the American cultural hegemony that now affects every aspect of life. AntonioBu 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC). Although it is wrong to assume bad faith, you don't exactly help your case with your stated purpose and actions, which are obviously aggressive. Oh, and I'm assuming this is about you uploading Image:DogDefecating.jpg? --mboverload@ 06:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding you were blocked specifically for removing a warning from your talk page from an administrator. I personally take a very dim view of that and I see no reason to lift the block at this time (you asked, indirectly, on the unblock mailing list) as I see no change in behaviour to warrant it. The repeated incivility was not addressed by this block, perhaps it should have been as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to de-Americanise Wikipedia, do it the correct way and go join the Countering Systematic Bias WikiProject. P.S. Calling it Wikipaedia would Britify it. Not really a neutral alternative. Besides, the name Wikipedia isn't POV at all. Dutchmen, German people and multiple other nationalities write it this way. You can't get any more neutral. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [14], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: [15]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin [17], and substantially rewrote the article [18]. This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be Deir Yassin massacre. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Based on this, I reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 for acting like WP:TROLLs. I had lodged a previous report on ANI[24] that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on Talk:Sikhism, Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of user:Sukh. These users have spoken offensively to user:Sukh, User:Rajatjghai, user:Gsingh and myself.

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

user:ARYAN818

Relevant Diffs (most recent):[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42]

Relevant Diffs (continuous):[43], [44],[45],[46], [47],[48]

user:Elven6

Relevant Diffs (most recent): [49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59]

Previous Report (continuous):[60], [61], [62],[63]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:YaR GnitS's sockpuppetry, vandalism, and disruption

This situation is getting out of hand and I think more eyeballs are needed. An indefinitely blocked user, YaR GnitS, is apparently intent on pushing the following POV, non-notable, original research material: Gay ICP. When he added it to Insane Clown Posse (the subject matter of his material), the consensus of the other editors was to not include this material, so he created it as a separate article[64]. When I discovered it, I tagged it for deletion[65], and so far the votes have been nearly unanimous for the vote has been decided in favor of deletion.[66] note: check history when looking at the votes, he frequently vandalizes and rewrites editors' votes to reverse them, and you might be looking at a vandalized version.

Then he began to make personal attacks [67] against myself and other users who voted to delete, and to vandalize the afd page to alter people's votes [68]., see afd edit history This earned him an indefinite block[69].

He has now created at least two sockpuppets: YaR GnitS 64 and YaR GnitS 82, and possibly a third: Riddlebox Wraitz. He appears to edit from IP 64.12.116.204 [70], which is AOL so it can't be indefinitely blocked (at least, not until BPP gets implemented!). With one of them he has created a duplicate of his original article which has been speedy deleted [71]; according to RHaworth, who was kind enough to redirect and protect the article, it has been created and speedied no less than three times tonight.

As far as I can tell, there is no question about whether this user is disruptive or deservant of a block. He has displayed nothing but vandalism and disdain for consensus and NPOV since he arrived. He was asked and warned to edit more constructively[72]. The problem now is maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia until he gets bored and goes away. I would like to request assistance in finding his sockpuppets and stopping his vandalism, POV pushing, and personal attacks.

Note: see also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YaR GnitS, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YaR GnitS.

Thanks, Kasreyn 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Er...not that I'm an admin, but Riddlebox Wraitz (talk · contribs) was probably just some name this guy made up. There are no contributions page for the user, and only the User Page and User Talk Page exist. The edit was even made by YaR GnitS. Ryulong 07:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I wasn't the one who tagged that as a sockpuppet; I'll remove it. Kasreyn 07:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't even a User Creation Log. I would, however, suggest making this a doppleganger account. Ryulong 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because it isn't a user; [[User:insert name here]] pages can be created without having to have a user to correspond to them. It's probably best to delete, move, or merge these pages somewhere. --ais523 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Block request - Ad vitam aeternam

User:Ad vitam aeternam has been vandalizing 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis with POV. When I called him on it, he vandalized my userpage. --Pifactorial 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Make that, vandalized my userpage repeatedly. --Pifactorial 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. If he does that again, it will be a lot longer.--MONGO 09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Satris and possible sockpuppets

User:Satris was blocked for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Now new users Julliardgal (talk · contribs), Lotsofmusic (talk · contribs), Pianochic (talk · contribs) and Lotsalove (talk · contribs) have been making the same edits to Ronen Segev, Ten O'Clock Classics, Veda Kaplinsky and Laser hair removal that Satris made. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please take this to WP:RFCU. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• has already been checked, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Juilliardgal. Thatcher131 13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Jonny the Vandal

I believe User: JohnJogger and User: Jane Feathers may be aliases of Johnny the Vandal. The two have severely vandalized Chelsy Davy with edits claiming she is a transexual pornstar. Vickser 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Norman Invasion reverted to the (clearly false) vandalized page and put up a semi-protected noticed when no such protection existed. Vickser 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked all of them. --pgk^(talk) 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lior blocked

I've indefinitely blocked Lior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making this edit, which reads in part "It is a matter of fact that your father raped your elder sister and then buried her alive in a dumpster". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That link appears to be broken (perhaps from the page move). It is right here. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Andrew Homer

I blocked Andrew Homer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for a week for blatant attacks; this is not his first block and he seems completely unrepentant. Above all, he seems intent on personalising a content dispute, and that is never going to be fixed unless he changes his approach radically. Hopefully a longer block will convince him we're serious. If anyone feels this is excessively harsh they are welcome to reduce it; I would hope not below 48 hours, but whatever. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Would someone kindly block this (user page specific) vandalism only account? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, appears to have been taken care of already. (→Netscott) 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Blanking one's warnings among other things. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

83.70.199.1

IP 83.70.199.1 : Has been reverted several times. See 1) [73] 2) [74] Hello32020 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss

I have been the subject of an accusation of violation of WP:ENC by User:Hipocrite on his talk page. There is much background on this, but what I'm coming here for is his refusal to discuss the matter. I tried to respond to the accusation here, but he removed my response without removing this accusation. Isn't making an accusation like that without hearing out the editor in question slanderous and not in accordance with WP:AGF? I thought so, so I said so here, asking to discuss it as equals. He removed it again and again, each time leaving his accusation there. He even "banned" me from posting in his talk page, leaving me an uncivil comment in the process. I read the guidelines for talk pages, didn't see anyhting about banning people from them. And now he's made an "archive for arses" and dumped my comments in there. I think I've put up with this slander, personal attacks and general hostility long enough. Comments would be greatly appreciated; please tell me if I'm in the wrong here. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a posting from an editor that hadn't edited in six months, linking me to encyclopedia dramatica's new mainpage article that is supposed to be about me. I removed it and changed the comments as I do not need , yes trolling like that on my talk page. You later come in and restore an edited version of the comments that I had altered [75]. In this, you reminded me of the obvious and added the editor summary of "rv deliberate mischaracterization of talk page comment by MONGO by changing the heading". Hipocrite removed it for me[76], you reverted [77] he reverted [78] and then you restored it again [79] and again he reverted [80], yet agin, you restored it....[81], so hipocrite then tried to minimize damage with [82]...but that wasn't good enough and you once again, reverted the section heading [83]. Tony Sidaway finally reverted the entire passage to the version I wanted [84]. Basically, I removed the links or mention to that website since at this time, they are enaging in personal attacks against me on their mainpage. Your attempts to point out this fact, even after I had removed them constitutes a personal attack. I have never met you before and this isn't some kind of playground. Guess what happens next to trolls? PsychoMaster indeed.--MONGO 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Once YOU got rid of it, I didn't revert. how was I supposed to know what you wanted? All you had done before was to turn the heading into a personal attack.. The discussion itself was left untouched by you when I reverted the personal attack. Your complaints are baseless and unrelated to my problem with Hipocrite's general superiority attitude. THat issue was (poorly) dealt with and is now dead. ANy other comments? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 22:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You restored a version that I had altered and mischaracterized it with the edit summary I stated baove...yes it was trolling. Don't play games here.--MONGO 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe anyone here will take your case. "petty bureaucrats always support one another" - quote from: The Book of Balance and Harmony (13th Century Taoist writing) --Acatsfinetoo 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Troll warning...three edits...one being to welcome himself to Wikipedia...[85]--MONGO 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, you're in the wrong. Also quite wrong when you claim, on my talkpage, that I've "alleged" you committed policy violations. No, I haven't. If you post on MONGO's page again it won't be for violating paragraph 10 B of policy 6 R, Amendment 173 that I'll block you, it'll be for inconsiderate obnoxiousness and not using common sense. I get to do that. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC). P. S. And leave Hipocrite alone, too. Don't post on his page. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
    • I'm not even talking about you here. Please try to be more observant. Is there any chance we can be civil here?Psycho Master (Karwynn) 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society

The AfD discussion for Mega Society has been muddied by numerous anonymous IP edits and no less than 8 single purpose accounts listed here. I don't know what anyone can do about it, but some sort of confirmation that someone's paying attention to it would give my weary soul some rest. -- NORTH ^talk 21:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on the page. The closing admin will likely ignore all dodgy votes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, can I get an opinion on what should be done with this on the talk page. The comment by Howlinwolf was originally posted in the main discussion, struckthrough by an admin, and was then deleted by his supposed sockpuppet-master and copy and pasted as his own.

I put the original version on the talk page, and am now in a rousing debate with User:MichaelCPrice over whether this is appropriate or not. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- NORTH ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of IP 82.110.149.183

Hello All,

Firstly I'll introduce myself as Tony Sargeant, Network Manager of St Bernard's Convent School, Slough (see article).

I see that the school IP (82.110.149.183) has been blocked from editing until 12th September 2006. Good, please leave blocked. I agree with your policies being applied to protect the articles.

Is there a way I can stop the St Bernard's School article from being changed? Or be under my control? There are some minor errors in it.

Regards

 --TonySargeant 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You can edit the article, like anyone else; as for "control", please see WP:OWN. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are blocked at your work access from changing the article, you can pass along the changes necessary to another user. However, we don't really lock down any articles, and therefore it is always possible for them to be changed, appropriately or inappropriately. We're pretty vigilant, however. We miss some vandals, and we miss some mistakes, but generally we spot it when a school article gets "booger" edits and the like. Geogre 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scared by edit summaries at an article

I've been watching 4chan, trying to keep it free of "/b/tardism" (vandalism by users of the Random board of the site) and these edit summaries are scaring me a little:

• /b/tards added real /b/tard contents. Dont change Ryulong or Anonymous will get you
• /b/tards added real /b/tard contents. Dont change Ryulong or Anonymous will get you

These were added by JimKandol (talk · contribs) and I'm a little scared, especially because I reverted an edit that had already been reverted. My user page is sprotected (anonymous IP editors can't get me), but this user may be able to edit it, since his account is older. Ryulong 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Gave the user a final warning abakharev 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Abakharev. If he ignores the warning or if my talk page gets vandalized by IP editors, I'll be posting here, again. Ryulong 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Being referred to by name again

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

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

Range blocking of 65.138.68.0/22

There has been repeated abuse of various sorts from the IP range 65.138.68.0 - 65.138.71.255. This culminated with what might be interpreted as death threats towards another user. (see [86] and [87]) This address range maps to a pair of dialup concentrators in Louisville, Kentucky, which I have now range-blocked for 24 hours. -- The Anome 22:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

Condoleezza Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is bursting at the seams with insanity once again. Although it's been fprotected, the talk page is getting really nasty, with an overabundance of racist allegations, impersonations, and invasions of privacy. Several users are acting way out of line. Could an administrator please look into the article? Thank you. Isopropyl 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, can someone else close the discussion about proposed changes and request unprotection? Thanks. Isopropyl 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:FelsenVonEngland is banned user User:BrittonLaRoche?

Editing same subjects (e.g. Celtic toe, and contributing artwork credited to Britton LaRoche, eg. This will be the third User:BrittonLaRoche sock, reported to WP:SSP Pete.Hurd 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Known Copyvio

Sean Fury (talk · contribs) recently created 4chan List of Memes. This article is a direct copy-paste from WikiWorld's 4chan article. I do not know if he will remove the {{db-copyvio}} tag, or if he will recreate the article, but if he does, then there will be a link to it here. Ryulong 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful accusations

DyslexicEditor (talk · contribs) is making up lies about me and posting them to other users talk pages. Posting on Ed Poor's talk page "MONGO on wikipedia has impersonated you on Encyclopædia Dramatica as one of the sock puppets he used to vandalize their article about him, the other is MONGO1. I would link to proof to ED's "MONGO" article but MONGO has ordered me not to link to it (he has also removed the link to it from the article so you will have to see the article's history for the link). I am asking for a statement that it was not you." I have not used another wikipedians username anywhere else, and this is a lie deliberately designed to further discredit me. I stated unambiguously that I have never edited encyclopedia dramatica nor anywhere else that posts in a wiki-style format. I stated that I know that someone has deliberately used my username on ED and at unencyclopedia. DyslexicEditor has also posted links to ED to blocked editors encouraging them to make comments about us there [88] and other places in a deliberate attempt to harass me and/or promote that website via wikipedia.[89], [90], [91], [92], [93]. The main problem I have is the personal defamation campaign DyslexicEditor is engaging in.--MONGO 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, one more example of him accusing me of signing up as Ed Poor at that other website...[94]--MONGO 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block commensurate with the scale of the attacks. One week? --Tony Sidaway 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best as I can see no reason that we should support the defamation of any Wikipedian here by linking others to off wiki sites and pages that serve solely to harass.--MONGO 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DyslexicEditor also created an attack redirect page, making Unfunny (now speedy deleted for being an attack) which redirected to encyclopedia dramatica. --mboverload@ 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure its an attack as such, it was created a week ago and the creating edit summary suggests it is one of the ways they describe themseleves (which I can well believe). --pgk^(talk) 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please block 24.252.28.188 (talk · contribs), it seems that they are impersonating MONGO on ED causing the source of all this trouble, it would be a good bet that this IP belongs to DyslexicEditor and should be blocked as the source of off wiki personal attacks and disruption--messanger 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's actually quite funny, because yesterday that IP edit history included an edit to North Saskatchewan River which seems to have ceased to exist in the last few hours--Max Bialystock 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, the same thing seems to have happened to this talk page--Max Bialystock 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrewwinkler (talk · contribs)...

...appears to be a trolling-only account. I would like to see him indefblocked, but would rather not take the action myself. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

This page is protected, but Peppers, Brian has just been created. I've set a redirect, but a protection is required Clappingsimon talk 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected, and all revisions prior to redirection deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it was deleted, it is no longer protected. Kotepho 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's an annoying 'feature'. Thanks to FloNight for restoring protection. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it's always been that way. Would this be a possible feature request? --Cyde↔Weys 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that we can usually speedy-delete articles that redirect to a delete-protected article. Would "Peppers, Brian" be better served with a delete-protection as well? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peppers, Brian is delete protected and move protected per FloNight according to the history. Is the protection not in place? Syrthiss 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't redirect to the expanded reasoning - the bit that says "This page has been deleted by Jimbo Wales, and should not be re-created until 21 February 2007 at the earliest". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that not what is in place? A redirect to Brian Peppers (which itself has the expanded reasoning), that is fully locked down. Because thats what it looks like. ;) Syrthiss 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no real problem with either result, a delete-protected page or a redirect to a delete-protected page. I suppose the optics of redirecting to a Jimbo-deleted page would serve better. Doesn't matter either way. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning two accounts by the same person...

I don't know if this is the right page for this, but I'm just suspicious that Panda52 and Butterfly52 are the same user. Note their user pages. Both of them are similar in their bad grammar. It's just a hunch, but whoever each of those two are both put the wrong date in the Aalog-Alog article. - 上村七美 | talk 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as they aren't violating policy or doing any other malicious things there's nothing wrong with a person having two or more accounts although it is discourged, see WP:SOCK for more information on that. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AFriendlyKitten (talk · contribs)

User removed a talk page vandalism warning. Although user stopped editing after that, I was told to report it here. Gimmetrow 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dyslexic agnostic is blocked for 48 hours

User:Dyslexic agnostic is blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks as seen in this edit. User referring to other party in this settled arb-com case as boor and ignorant. Per user's probation the maximum block available to admins is now one year. Steve block Talk 11:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

abusive admin terrorising TPIR editors

I have speedy deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TPIRFanSteve. The page was created by Buckner 1986 (talk · contribs), a user with a history of needlessly escalating conflicts. The sock puppet accusations were conclusively disproven. The page was embarrassing to one party in the The Price is Right dispute (I can't believe I just typed that), and damn well ought to be embarrassing to the other.

Because the assertions made by Buckner 1986 are definitely incorrect; the page has seen no activity in quite some time; both parties, if they're smart, will want it gone; and I'm in a deletin' kinda mood, I've speedied it and reverted the various abusive sockpuppet templates placed on the userpages of TPIRFanSteve (talk · contribs) and several unrelated users. Feel free to pelt me with brickbats ... now. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :) - FrancisTyers · 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no article called Brickbat. Can we use maces instead? Syrthiss 12:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at Google

There is an edit war at Google regarding whether mention of Chinese censorship belongs in the introductory paragraph. While an attempt to arrive at consensus is being made at Talk:Google, certain editors continue to insert the text despite continued warning that it should remain out until consensus is reached. Countless edits/reverts have ensued (with likely 3RR violations). I'm especially concerned with User:Spet1363 admitting that s/he also edits under User:129.67.89.102 (perhaps to avoid 3RR?) [95]. Again today, rather than working towards consensus, that editor re-inserted the disputed content under the anon IP [96], while placing this comment in talk [97]. It is apparent that Spet/129 is not willing to allow consensus to decide whether the content should be included. Options? Partial protect the page? Temporary block to let tempers cool? Intervention is appreciated. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Have you tried a straw poll on the talk page? --Improv 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its there now. Thanks for the (obvious) suggestion. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Community block on User:Mayor Westfall

Recently User:Adam Bishop blocked this user indefinitely for trolling on WP:RD. Having looked through his contributions, I agree partially: some of his posts are clearly inflammatory (check out his first edit, for instance). I feel that this guy could be unblocked eventually, but certainly not yet. Anyway, I just wanted to post a notice about it here; since this would be a community patience block, I think it merits a mention here at least. Mangojuice^talk 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Baron Von Westfall is presently active on WP:RD. — Lomn | Talk 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious. Mayor Westfall was blocked on 7/11, and Baron Von Westfall became active later. FWIW though, Baron Von Westfall seems to be behaving. *shrugs* Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So were some of Westfall version 1's. The guy's just a timewaster; he had thirteen main-space edits, and two to article talkspace - one of which was abusive. One Wikipedia: space edit that wasn't to WP:RD (which was on an AFD - "I'm the mayor and I say delete"), and north of a hundred, mostly pointless, questions to WP:RD. As far as I can see he was trying to be funny; it didn't work. On it being unsubtly hinted that we knew he was screwing about, he got abusive; on Tagishsimon making the point clearer, he just strutted. Community patience was definitely exhausted on my part - he was being an idiot, wasting people's time, and not even having the redeeming feature of being funny about it. Shimgray | talk | 16:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo's true identity

General Tojo is actually one of the many sockpuppets of User:JoanneB. And I can confirm this fact; SPUI has told me of it via email, and can confirm it.

Ask SPUI for more info - he's got the full story. --Holcon 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a very serious charge. I suggest you contact a member of Arbcom and offer to e-mail them your proof. They can run appropriate checks if needed. Thatcher131 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is patently false. I've blocked Holcon for 15 hours for making it. Trolling on WP:AN/I is not to be tolerated. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd already blocked indefinitely, contributions are very similar to a bunch of users recently such as [98], placing blockedsock templates on their own page for a variety of admins etc. Complaining that the blockedsock template was broken (which this latest incarnation's first edit was to fix) etc. --pgk^(talk) 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So we can block people for disagreeing with us now? Evil saltine 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Who blocked whom for disagreeing with whom? Holcon was blocked for trolling. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Threats and legal stuff at Mitch Modeleski

Mitch Modeleski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Presumably Mitch Modeleski himself is posting cease-and-desists over the text of this article, as User:Supremelaw, User talk:166.214.106.208, and User talk:166.214.16.223.

Diffs:

• [99]
• [100]
• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
• [104]
• [105]
• [106]
• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]
• [111]
• [112]

I don't want to be the target of legal action by this guy, so I no longer want to be involved in this. --Chris (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit ([113]) quotes an old threat that was posted against me on my talk page weeks ago. I think this person may be unbalanced. Fan-1967 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: [114]. The user has started an email correspondance with me, threatening me with legal action, apparantly under the misguided belief that I am incharge of wikipedia (!) I have since replied to him asking that he direct his comments to the article talk page, not me, and I explained that I do not own wikipedia. Could we have page protection on the page in question so that the edit wars calm down? It should also be noted that the company for which the user works (ie his company) charges an extorionate rate for sorting out their own copyright issues, which the usere claims this is (but I dont see how it can be). Martinp23 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I have protected the article. I have reduced it to a stub because the content was not cited; this is what we are supposed to do in cases of biographies of living individuals - specifically: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.". If editors can provide valid citations from reliable sources for the removed content then I am sure it can be reinserted. I have left a comment on the article's Talk page to this effect. I just know I'm going to get in trouble for this, but since the ANI seems to be only sporadically monitored and this does look like a highly volatile and litigious individual I have adopted the precautionary principle. I am off now and will probably not be logging again until tomorrow, so to be unambiguous any admin is welcome to undo any or all the above, to reduce to semi-protection or whatever. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcyu

I have blocked Marcyu (talk · contribs) for one month for personal attacks (and refusing to attribute comments by means of refusing to sign -- or to let people use {{unsigned}} to show what comments that he's making). Comments about whether the block is appropriate and whether it's for the right length are welcome. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much in the way of constructive edits from that user, but I can't see any personal attacks on a random sampling, either. Can you provide some diffs? The so-called "unlinked signature" is pretty clearly in violation of WP:SIG (obscures real username, inappropriate pseudo-username "Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins"). --ajn (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the "signature" is the personal attack, in my opinion. Certainly, if it had been a real user name, it would have qualified for an username block. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's grossly inappropriate, but I don't think I'd call it a personal attack. I think it would be a good idea to make it absolutely clear about what exactly you have blocked this person for, on their talk page, given the history and argument about what is/isn't disruption, vandalism and attacking. --ajn (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet with a vanity article and a history of link-spamming

64.1.198.83, 70.89.181.10, Fiber-optics and Timbercon appear to be accounts owned by the same user to spam links for a small fiber-optics business, Timbercon. They also have a vanity article, Timbercon, which I have nominated for deletion. On June 2, they got one spam warning, then they used another account to add the same links again a few days later. Then June 12, another account was warned and links reverted. Then more spam-links were added by still another account.

There's an ongoing back and forth between me and these users at Talk:Timbercon. Repeatedly cleaning up link-spam, warning (politely at first), dealing with the vanity article, then with the sock-puppets objections spread across multiple talk pages, my talk page and the article talk page -- all of this is consuming hours of my time. The objections are disingenuously masked in a friendly, "how can I improve" manner that is belied by a review of all 4 accounts' talk pages and edit histories.

Any advice or help from admins before I just walk away; I've got my day job to consider and can waste no more time on this (in other words, the sockpuppet is about to win). --A. B. 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article to conform with WP content policies, as for the sockpuppetry, you mat want to add a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to learn they're notable with so few employees and such a low profile, but then I'm fairly new (<1500 edits). I probably should have just minded my own business instead of fooling with the spam links, sock puppets, notability, AfD and such. It's not as if any of this really damages the encyclopedia.

I've not used RFCU before but it looks like there are some high hurdles imposed for an RFCU:

• Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.
• Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser.
• Please do not list cases involving "throwaway" accounts that are only used for a few edits.
• Data is kept for a limited time so we cannot compare against accounts that have not edited recently.

As an admin and based on your experience, do you think this sockpuppet group meets these hurdles? If not, what steps, if any, should I take next?

Also, should I try to get that URL blocked using the blacklist?

Thanks,--A. B. 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Yorkshire Terrier Article

HELP! Why am I being blocked? I have nothing to do with the vandlism that is being alleged. IS Wiki just blocking everyone who uses AOL?

What's more, I edited the Yorkshire Terrier article with important links that were missing (check shooterdog.com, workingyorkie, and earthdog yorkie for examples. NON COMMERICIAL sites and they were deleted. MEanwhile, Smokey the War Hero dog - a commerical -for profit site is being hosted. WHY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately innocent users do sometimes get caught up in blocks, I'm sorry about that but sometimes, when a vandal is persistent we have no choice but to block the IP for a short time.As dor the yorkshire terrier article I suggest you ask at the talk page of that article, where people will be able to ecplain thier deletions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How to report abusive admin editing? / updated with details

What is the proper procedure for this? I suspect an admin is trolling/being abusive and biased on a certain article. thanks! rootology 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just put it here, or on AN/I (preferable.) Have you posted on their talk page and tried to work it out first? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Extensively. The following users are aggressively attacking the Encyclopædia Dramatica article since it was unprotected, frivously editing, deleting, and removing content in a very hostile fashion, despite repeated requests that such changes be done properly and discussed first on the talk page. MONGO's behavior especially has been wildly boorish and insulting--I don't even have anything to do with this, and just came into to try to push a NPOV/non biased POV as a middle ground. In response I've been accused of trolling, and the edit war persists. I want to ask that MONGO be at least temporarily stripped of sysop permissions based on his:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MONGO

outrageous antics and comments</a>. I don't know or am interested in whether the 3rd party ED article that flamed him is relevant or not. His boorish behavior and commentary are not representative of the type of person that should be in a position of power. It reflects negatively on wikipedia in general. The following are making the massive edits/deletions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipocrite

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=71.112.141.236 (recommend blocking IP temporarily)

Additionally, it was requested in the talk page of the article that time be given to cite sources. In response, these three went on a prolonged systemtic deletion spree in response and are fighting still--the admins themselves have turned it into an edit war. I will put it in AN/I too. rootology 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

One place or the other, not both. A "massive deletion spree" is not only not a problem, it is laudable, if (as from what you're saying is the case) there is unsourced content on the article. "Wait, I'll find a source" is not a free pass to ignore WP:V. Find a source that meets RS criteria, then the content can be added to the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are three talk page archives about every sentence in that article regarding references. What MONGO is doing is just plain disruption. SchmuckyTheCat 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And I went to check the article, and Karwynn is using a link to an Afd debate as a source. Um, right. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to see any credibility to this when I am labelled as "boorish". The article failed to meet WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:NPOV...geez, you name it.--MONGO 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437662

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&curid=1975039&diff=64414695&oldid=64413700

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414908

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=prev&oldid=64526606

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64527993

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=64419547

Thanks.Note your last edit there is you actually deleting a request that you be investigated. Isn't that a conflict of interest? 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You unilaterally protected the article and began to edit it, and then protected the talk page so no one couold have any input, also refusing to hear about it on your own talk page. YOu cut much of the article's talk page out and archived it, even when it was still active headings. You threatened and intimidated users who mentioned the matter. You deleting huge chunks of the article, without even a note in the talk page, and continued to delete rather than insert "fact" tags or other notices of disputes. You reverted several attempts to include sources. YOu have been intentionally deletionist and uncooperative. That's how you've been "boorish". Karwynn (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You cite a blocked troll's edits? How amusing. Everyone of you people are misusing wikipedia to POV push encyclopedia dramatica and should be permabanned.--MONGO 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All my edits before getting pulled into this mess had nothing to do with ED. I pushed and pushed in the talk pages for a balanced, fair, by the books review/changes, nothing more, until I was met with increasingly hostile replies and apparent abuse. I have nothing to do with ED. I should be permabanned for publically airing what I perceived to be a possibe admin abuse issue? rootology 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed original research here since it wasn't verifiable:here, same here, and here, then added this, removed again an unreliable source here, the added a references tag, then removed this attempt at link farming and removed the link farm again. Nothing I have done violates any policy...the IP listed above is the one doing most of the deletions. As far as the talk page, it was doing nothing to make the article better...hence I added the boilerplates at the top now, since it has become a troll magnet...I now see several editors working the page that are all SYSOPS at encycliopedia dramatica...or at least have the same usernames...who are you people trying to fool here with this nonsense. This isn't some playground where you get to promote the filth on that website.--MONGO 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you have my sympathies. Good luck. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It also seems as though User:24.252.28.188, a sockpuppet of User:DyslexicEditor is being used to impersonate MONGO on both en.wikipedia and ED, MONGO made the correct first steps in deleting all the edits from wikipedia in which 24.252.28.188 was pretending to be him, even signing his name, but given the severity of cross wiki personal attacks, MONGO would be well within his rights to block this IP for at least a month, and give DyslexicEditor a chance to cool down--messanger 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nine edits. Admitted run-in contributor. Karwynn (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That IP is not used by DyslexicEditor...it appears he uses AOL.--MONGO 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever they are, leaving an impersonator running around unblocked is bound to cause problems--messanger 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? We don't block anyone because they vandalized another website...since when. Do a range block on AOL if you want to catch DyslexicEditor--MONGO 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, but the edits that you deleted from this IPs history showed it doing the same thing here, on wikipedia, even signing your name in articles that you frequent, it seems like a border line wiki-stalker, I don't think deleting its wikipedia edit history is enough, a block may be the only thing that can stop future impersonation attempts--messanger 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see deleted-page-histories as well as the next person, it seems that someone who goes around wikipedia editing articles that you edit, and signing your name to talk pages has no intention of playing nice, the fact that they would export vandalism from ED to Wikipedia shows their intent to continue their attacks on you--messanger 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So why the complete disregard for discussion, MONGO? Why all the secrecy? Why the attempt to exclude sourced information from the article? Karwynn (talk)

What sourced info? You mean from unreliable sources?--MONGO 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you mange to discuss their reliability? Even Hipocrite managed that! It's obvious that ED articles can be used to verify the existence of ED article themes, even if the actual info isn't necessarily accurate. Karwynn (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the E.D. article is now up for deletion (again). (→Netscott) 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I know little about this debate and have only had positive experiences with MONGO in the few times I've had anything to do with him here. I can see that ED hosts an extremely derogatory page which I'm sure he finds very insulting (having read it, I can definitely say that I'd be infuriated if it was written about me). It would strain the best of editors' patience and temper to deal with such inflammatory and personal attacks. Therefore, and I don't mean any disrespect, it seems a tad inappropriate for him to be personally involved in dealing with the issue. I suggest that MONGO ought to recuse himself from dealing with the article on ED to avoid the appearance of partiality. There are plenty of other administrators who can defend that particular article from vandalism, trolls, etc. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As the following user continues to quickly complete edit out changes to the article while editors are making "good faith" attempts to work on the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipocrite

I am requesting that he officially be banned for at least 24 hours from editing the ED article. rootology 23:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand behind my edit history. I have no non-vandalism reverts on that article to my knowledge, and am certainly not engaging in the fruitless editwar. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So you see no bias or conflict of interest for either yourself or MONGO to directly participate in this article given the recent problems? I request again that both yourself and MONGO do not participate in this. There are literally HUNDREDS of other editors more suited at the time being. I don't mind others making valid edits, but given the hostile tone from MONGO and the sheer determination of yourself to work at removing the article from wikipedia outright, I believe this is a conflict of interest in your role and position. rootology 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you're just as determined to see it survive so claiming others as being incapable of not being biased is really a double standard. Going around claiming others are abusing their position etc., demanding those that disagrree with you recluse themselves...how obtuse can one get?--MONGO 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over pending deletion vote of Encyclopedia Dramatica

The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself.

If the vote and discussion from the article is a "keep" or no concensus, I am concerned that some action may be unilaterally taken vs. this article after the vote possibly, going against concensus. Questions in regards to this have been ignored on the vote page, while every other question/comment from parties opposed to the article's existence have been met with swiftness. rootology 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "vote"...--MONGO 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is fine for syntax clarification, thank you. I expect if a decision of keep or no concensus of the discussion is clearly reached, it will be honored as is standard...? rootology 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad for whoever is going to close that mess. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have evidence that the attempt at deletion was a premeditated act to destroy the article: [115]( other one - threat in edit summary) Hardvice 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Shove deep and thrust

User:Shove deep and thrust has been vandalizing some, but the name itself may be a problem. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The user name is benign. For all we know, he could be referring to the act of digging a deep whole with a shovel. Maybe that's what he's doing right now. Who knows? But let's not read so much into usernames. --AaronS 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The account has already been idefinately blocked. Nothing to see hear. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

legal threat or lame trolling attempt?

Someone on Wikinews posted a possible legal threat towards me. She claimed that I applied for access to a chat room, which I did not. In fact, I don't even use chat rooms much at all. I have a feeling that this is just a lame trolling attempt. How should I deal with this situation? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks to Avador (talk · contribs) for bringing this to my attention. --Ixfd64 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of phishing attempt to me, or someone is trying to stalk you. Ignore it. It's garbage. Fan-1967 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note "internet securities act of 1983"????? Good one. Fan-1967 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem like a silly attempt to get my personal information. I'm not too worried about it. Thanks for the input! --Ixfd64 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to report that post to the Wikinews administrators. --Ixfd64 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. There is no conceivable legitimate purpose, and the legal stuff is absolute crap. Fan-1967 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wing Nut & copyright

I thought I'd bring this up since it seems to be a recurring issue. Wing Nut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is lifting entire passages from copyright protected sources (newspapers, magazines) and insterting them into articles as statements of fact without any attribution other than an external link to the source. Recent examples are Mike Hammer: [116] and Roy Spencer: [117] I've added attributing language to these edits to avoid the NPOV and copyvio issues but I'm not the one to have a word with him since we've had content-related disputes, but someone should. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD spam only sockpuppet

Would someone kindly indef block Funcionar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Shanes took care of it. Thanks Shanes! (→Netscott) 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia yet again

Same old revert war at Scandinavia. [118] On one side we have a number of experienced Wikipedia editors and on the other we have User:Comanche_cph and User:Supermos who do essentially nothing except fight about this. Both of them have five or more reverts on that page in the last 24 hours. A typical argument from them is: "TELL ME WHAT IS MORE RELIABLE THAN THE SWEDISH NATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOTHING!" and "As I have said and will continue to say nothing is more official than the school books of ones country and the national encyclopedias of ones country." As far as I can see neither of them is making any attempt to familiarize himself with basic Wikipedia policies and principles. Can someone buy us some peace over there? Haukur 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Comanche_cph for 24 hours for violating the 3RR (a repeat incident, as his talk page shows - he's been blocked and warned before). User:Supermos doesn't seem to have been warned before so I've given him the usual last-chance-before-blocking warning and urged him to resolve the matter without edit warring. I've also rolled back the last edit by Supermos (choosing a more-or-less random version from someone else). If you wish, I'm happy to act as an informal mediator - I'm emphatically not involved in the dispute, though I am fairly familiar with the region and something of a Scandinavophile (is that a word??). Let me know on my talk page if you feel this would be helpful. -- ChrisO 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

Poorly sourced negative material about this individual (a source of wikipedia controversy) is being multiply reverted into the article. I require immediate adminstrative assistance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if some admin could look at it, that would be helpful. Garion96 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia

I see and have a big problem with this editor and I don't quite know how to deal with it.

This editor is very domineering and controlling and not entirely scrupulous about it, frequently needling and baiting other editors. I'd rather you form your own opinions by visiting Talk:Asperger syndrome‎ and archives.

With this editor the deal seems to be that unless you submit to his/her control he/she will find ways to make trouble for you.

Today I REALLY believed that we had finally got a concensus going in spite of User:SandyGeorgia that still included User:SandyGeorgia, but I was wrong, the minute I expressed this here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Asperger_syndrome&diff=64565831&oldid=64562892 , she/he had a knife in my back here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nandesuka&curid=3199574&diff=64570655&oldid=64351761 about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned).

I feel this user needs a gentle "word from the wise", and I can't find a way to do it right.

HELP! --Zeraeph 01:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Samanello

This is a brief notice that I blocked User:Samanello for 24 hours for vandalism (actually, for WP:POINT and generally for being deliberately disruptive). User was subsequently blocked indefinitely by another admin and then proceeded to make legal threats against me. Sometime thereafter, user requested to be unblocked and a third admin looked in to the matter. In order to centralise discussion, I set up User:Yamla/Samanello containing the discussion thus far. I do not believe anyone else needs to get involved but I am noting this information here in case anyone else wants to double-check what is going on and in the interests of being open. --Yamla 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm concerned by this user's edits and actions. Appears to only have the intent of attacking admins.[119]. Yanksox 01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider this a priority. He commented on my talk page in regards to my reverting this edit and we've had some discussion. However, while we were conversing, he created an anti-administrator template and began posting it on administrator's userpages. One can see that he's decidely determined to be antagonistic from the comments left on my talk page. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Johnny the Vandal. Same as the now-blocked User:Novart. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

King of Hearts has blocked the user for a week. While I do see some irony in the matter, whether or not the user is Johnyy the Vandal, they have no productive edits. If no one objects, I am going to make the block indefinite. JoshuaZ 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest the same thing. It's what we do with abuse-only accounts, surely? Not give them a week off. Bishonen | talk 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

Per Bishonen, I have blocked the user indefinitely. If anyone disagrees feel free to unblock. JoshuaZ 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of edits, many bad articles

I know this page says it doesn't deal with abusive behaviour, but I can't find another place to post about this issue.User:L.G. seems to have some sock puppets, like User:68.8.29.40 and User:68.101.241.195. If this isn't the correct page to use asking for assistance, please do take a moment to point me to the proper spot.

These users have created nonsense articles that we've been filing for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBIT FM
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KFYT FM
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KMBS FM
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KWLD

If you dig into the edit history of the deleted articles, you'll find another username or two. You will also find that the user reverts, blanks, and modifies AfD and PROD tags.

The user-set will occassionally add articles about valid stations, but they're poorly written with badly-checked facts and other problems. Contact attempts at the L.G. talk page haven't helped.

They have made literally hundreds of edits to List of urban-format radio stations in the United States. -- Mikeblas 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the user. The next time he creates a hoax article like this he should be blocked and the article(s) speedily deleted. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-19 05:34Z

Blacklist for linkspammer?

Could someone with privileges on Meta consider blacklisting the site http://www.ringtones-dir.com? I just saw one instance of inserting hidden links into an article here, and I suspect that there are – or will be – more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There were (and probably are) more, based on the Google site search I just ran, on several non-English Wikipedias (or sort of non-English, too: there's a SCOTTISH Wikipedia?: Gin ye dinna want yer writin tae be editit athoot mercy an redistribute at will, than dinna submit it here). Someone with access to the proper tools ought to run a search on the current state of Wikipedia, not Google's probably outdated cache. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disruption and possible original research by IP editor

67.22.6.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was brought to my attention by the disruptive edits he made at Power Rangers: Mystic Force, which can be said to be orignal research, however the content of his edits are well received by the Power Rangers fandom. In fact, the information he stated is listed in the trivia section prior to his edits, as well as on other pages related to the series. It's just that the diction of his edits are a little condescending: "Five bucks says Nick is Bowen" and "Anyone who has done any research...". While the gist of these statements are regarded as true, I don't think they are necessary for inclusion in the article. I had left messages on the user's talk page, a test3 with some personalization and then he had done the second contribution while I was leaving him the message. I then gave him a test4 with other personalization and then listed him on WP:AIV, and then I was directed to list him here through a message left on my talk page. I'm not sure as to what should be done. Ryūlóng 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

64.110.251.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is POV pushing over at Saskatchewan Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Ardenn 02:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark (again)

Blu Aardvark has been caught by CheckUsers making more abusive sockpuppet accounts (about two dozen in all), including such gems as The password to this account is "LOLJEWS" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and The password to this account is "JEWRANDA" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I recommend reinstating the indefinite block that was originally placed on him awhile ago before some people got the mistaken notion that he could somehow be rehabilitated. --Cyde↔Weys 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I reblocked indef for the mass sock creation, and given his prior past. 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaranda (talk • contribs)

The one year ban imposed by ArbCom has more relevance and teeth than a community imposed indef ban that is easier to overturn. I'm sure sockpuppetry would restart the clock on the ban. This is ArbCom's baby now. NoSeptember 05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This case is such a no-brainer that we don't need to waste ArbCom's time to extend the ban. --Cyde↔Weys 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't waste their time in these situations, any admin can extend the block and add it to the log on the ArbCom case page. NoSeptember 05:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark. I just added 20 users to this category from just the past week. There are still a lot of socks that Blu Aardvark created in the spring that were never tagged as socks and added to this category. --Cyde↔Weys 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it and believe that blue ardvark was provoked when an administrator removed blue ardvark's own messages in their talk page and protected it, claiming "they attempted to use their talk page." [120] My recommendation is that you unprotect his talk page and try to reason with him. Hardvice 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comment reminds me of why I prefer ArbCom blocks. The beauty of an ArbCom based block is that appeals from his friends at Encyclopedia Dramatica etc. will go nowhere, since it now takes more than just convincing one random admin to unblock him. NoSeptember 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• He was doing this for over an week now, and he had his chances, today after the block, he came in irc and PM me calling me a fucking wanker!. No point in having him around Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User RJ evading ban

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

Background Information

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

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

Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user

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

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

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

• 9 July

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

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

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

• 20 May, 20 May

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

• 15 July

Individualist anarchism "reborn", is another quote originally inserted by RJ into the [anarchism] aritlce:

• 23 June

has since been championed by Vision thing after RJs ban:

• 15 July, 3 July

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

• 11 January

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

• 3 July

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

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

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

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

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

• voting (as mentioned above)
• and Creating the illusion of broader support [121], [122]

RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account

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

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

The edits of RJ and Vision Thing are so nearly identical, and so obviously from the same narrow POV, that it can't helped but be felt that RJIIs intent to be "successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally)" is being carried on via the account of Vision Thing. In the very unlikely case that the circumstantial evidence I have compiled does not remove doubt that Vision Thing is a sock puppet of RJ he is at least a Meat Puppet (perhaps in the form of banned user Hogeye who worked closely with RJ in the past). Regardless, Vision Thing is clearly carrying out RJs explicitly stated goals of disrupting wikipedia and gaming the system. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Editor19841

User:Editor19841 has been spamming users with this message:

Hey, how's it goin'? I'm gathering support from Wikipedian Democrats to help bring the 2008 DNC to my hometown of Denver. If your interested, just post {{User Denver2008}} on your page. Anyhow, have a good one. Editor19841 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-19 05:36Z

Gah! Nonono... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've rolled back all the spam. I won't block because all this was a couple hours ago and he seems to be an established user, but I'll leave him a note. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)