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

I want to unblock the IP address 203.144.160.248

Hi Guys

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

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

Reference desk problem and block

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

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

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

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

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

LCs retorts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samir_(The_Scope)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

StuRat 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gandalf61 comment

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

After edit conflict:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoes input

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAAAAARGH!! There was no penis joke! DirkvdM 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem of which would be that one doesn't know what might get deleted unless it's done consistently according to a clear set of rules about which some sort of consensus has been reached. One central problem is that it is difficult to keep track of what is being deleted. The histories of the ref desks are way too long to dig through. If some people start to delete stuff it might seem to others that that is normal behaviour. Including others who don't know or understand the rules (if any). And that will (not 'may' but 'will') result in people deleting stuff they don't like. Coming up with a way to keep tabs on deletions is something that should be done first. We need that at the ref desk anyway, because people probably do it already, considering how much vandalism there is on Wikipedia. Encouraging them by giving the wrong example is a very bad idea. DirkvdM 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder how one could technically track deletions, though. Perhaps any edit where the result is, say more than 100 bytes shorter than the starting length ? That wouldn't be perfect, but better than no check, I suppose. A "D" could appear in front of such edits in the history, where the "N" for new or "m" for minor edit goes now. We could also allow editors to self identify deletions as they do for minor edits. I wouldn't expect them to do so consistently, though, so the size change check would also be needed. StuRat 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Justanother's input

I missed the bulk of this discussion but as a regular on the subject board I want to make my feelings known.

Most importantly: While I appreciate SCZenz' desire to improve wikipedia and his efforts to do so, I strongly oppose arbitrary censorship. I, personally, am more than willing to put up with a *possibly irrelevant* penis joke (though it actually did have some relevance) in order to protect my own right to make comments as I see fit (fit as being relevant to the discussion at hand although perhaps not popular with some wikipedians).

Other than that, I think that many, if not most, of the contributors are experienced wikipedians and are perfectly capable of policing the desk and dealing with disruptive influences. But it important to remember that one reason many of us like to hang out there is the jokes and banter. Only a part of the reason to be sure but part nonetheless. The intellectual stimulation and, often the tangents, have value to us. If they don't then we can ignore them.

Also, I think that article talk page rules are not analoguous and do not apply. The purpose of article talk pages is to develop an article that complies with wikipedia policy; it is important that they honor those policies. The purpose of the reference desk is to either answer a question or steer the questioner toward the answer. The postings there, especially on the misc. desk, will often consist of original research and may not cite their sources. That is entirely appropriate. The Reference Desks are their own beasts and perhaps need additional policy developed. If such policy needs developing it must be developed through the normal review process.

--Justanother 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen's proposal

I note that User:DirkvdM is down to ascribing a "hidden agenda" to SCZenz, and User:StuRat to assuring us that the views of admins are of no account, since admins "would support one another against the user community" anyway. (I don't think he can read ANI much.) Nevertheless I want to register my opinion that this is a matter suitable for handling at this board, and not the kind of thing Thatcher or SCZenz have any need to involve ArbCom in. And I support SCZenz's actions. It goes without saying that the "user community" involved must feel free to request arbitration if they see handling via ANI as inherently unjust. If everything has been said—and having just read the entire thread, I don't see how it could possibly have not been—is it perhaps time for somebody to put one of those snazzy colored frames and stop-talking headings on the thread? Bishonen | talk 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Geogre's view

On the strange wrestling over talk vs. article pages, the reference desk is a project page. Project pages are like AN, AN/I, AfD, RFA, etc., so that explains the mystery of how they can require signatures, allow some wobbling toward chat, and yet be subject to the rules of staying on topic. Ultimately, we're back to the problem of Internet discussion in general: it takes two people to go off topic. If no one answers, applauds, or condemns the silly jokes and chat, if no one tries to answer the troll questions, then it all stops. When, however, two or three people have the same interest in chat and/or play, then their habits can overwhelm the original purpose, and that's when it becomes appropriate for the other folks to show up and 1) urge, 2) cajole, 3) enforce topicality.

The RD pages have always been prone to "christians are stupid i think dont you" questions and "fags is going to hell" questions, as well as "I am taking a trivia test in a bar and I need to know who invented World War II." These questions invite smart aleck responses or adolescent banter. For the most part, the participants have an internal sense of when they're going off the beam, and therefore trolling questions tend to get no answers. However, because everyone is always new at Wikipedia, eventually those questions will find their own level, attract offended and amused and bored folks.

I agree with the rest of the site showing up to ask RD to stay on topic, but I think it's bad that we've gotten to the point where it becomes adversarial. Generally, RD has stopped chasing the bouncing balls without adversity when a gentle reminder comes in. Like chatter, belligerance takes two sides and bad timing. I think the intentions of David and SC are both pure. The way forward is for more folks to go to RD and keep an eye on when we start frolicking in the meadow and gently reminding each other that we need to stay on task. If it's fifty voices instead of a campaign, the chances of offense are lower. Geogre 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tajik's incivility continues

Tajik was banned for 24 hours[1], then for 48 hours for incivility.[2] Now that he is back, he posted a stalking accusation on my talk page[3], with no supporting diffs, because there are none. Please look at my last 500 copyedits[4] and Tajik's[5] and see if there is any evidence that I am following "every step" of Tajik's.[6] False accusations are not civil. KP Botany 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

And I suspect you are supporting him simply because I have called you to task for protecting pages you have been edit warring in.[7] And posted a comment about that. You are also personally involved in a lot of the edit wars that Tajik participates in, and because you are not neutral to the issue you should not have responded without evidence for your assertions. Like Tajik, you provided nothing. I am NOT stalking Tajik, cannot imagine anything more boring, and there is no evidence for my stalking Tajik, and never will be. He provided none, you as an administrator personally involved in the issue came in here and supported Tajik with no evidence of his stalking me and provided none of your own.

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

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

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

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

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

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

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

Well, as to evidence Khoikhoi is disagreeing with me because of other disputes?[51] And, looking at the time Khoikhoi posted and looking at Tajik's talk page[52] it seems Khoikhoi didn't even bother to look and see if there was any evidence that Tajik was being uncivil. So, that is my high ground: there was evidence of Tajik's lack of civility, a comment on his talk page about edit wars, and his comment on mine about my stalking him without any evidence. What exactly is it that Tajik can accuse me of something without any evidence and I don't have the high ground? Why do I have to provide evidence, but Tajik provided none and Khoikhoi provided none, and the existing evidence, Tajik's talk page contradicts what Khoikhoi said? As to Tajik trying to own Afghanistan, just look at its talk page, and the fact is, if he is accusing me of stalking him, I think they're the only edits we have in common for our last 500 or so, my half a dozen edits on Afghanistan, and the same number or so on its talk page. [53]KP Botany 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

KP, you yourself are making a lot of baseless accusations about me. A look at your contributions shows that you have a history of reporting Tajik for everything he does. How were you able to gather all those diffs of him if you claim you weren't stalking him? He asked you to stop, and in a manner that wasn't really incivil at all. You're accusing me of being a biased administrator, but if you yourself want to be unbiased, you should try reporting people besides Tajik for personal attacks, i.e. [54]. Khoikhoi 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Oh, I do comment to other editors on the Afghanistan article about their negative behaviours, also. User:NisarKand[55], User:Ariana310[56], I have e-mailed other users repeatedly urging civility, and I request users to be more polite, not just Tajik. So, my accusations have basis, I have provided them, I don't report Tajik for everything he does, just some things, and others have reported him too, and his talk page had comments by others already both times Khoikhoi posted, he asked me to stop something I wasn't doing without any proof or evidence I was doing it, and Khoikhoi leaped to his defense, this latest post shows the bias, because it includes accusations that I only report Tajik, well, NisarKand backed down, Ariana310 is trying really hard, and when I reported Tajik, I was certain to include an example and a comment about another user's behaviour at the same time. And the example Khoikhoi gives of me failing to report bad behaviour is of a page I don't watch or edit. KP Botany 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Of course KP Botany is stalking. He is following every single step I make in Wikipedia. All of this started when I opposed his various edits in support of known vandals and sockpuppets (see User:NisarKand, User:King Nisar, User:Pashtun, etc). He reported me to admins with refernce to the article List of Turks: [57]. KP Botany had never participated in that article, nor does he seem to have any interest in Turks-related articles [58]. He simply got to that page after spying on me. In my opinion, this is a clear proof that he IS stalking me. Tājik 15:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Tajik is the one stalking, and he knows it--he posted this without basis, Khoikhoi comes in and supports him without basis, a friend of Tajik's comes in and supports it without basis, acting as if he is an administrator, or this is an RfC. Tajik harassed me for editing the Herat article, when all I did was a copyedit. He falsely accused me of who knows what, demanding that I provide sources for a copyedit[59], here is the copyedit[60], which Tajik also said was my reverting or removing his edits. He accuses me of being a racist, a Taliban supporter and who knows what else. [61]

Please look at what he posted, and look at the links I posted, the first one[62] is to User E104421's talk page, the second one is to the same talk page[63] and the third one is from the first two, and it is on the list of Turks[64].

It is a good laugh, though, as the user I was "spying" on was E104421, who, lives in Turkey, and is a naturalist and backpacker. I am a researcher in endemic plants of depauperate mediterranean ecosystems, with a background in geology and mediterranean endemics, and Turkey is home to quite a few interesting ones, and is well studied for members of the Brassicaceae on certain edaphic ecosystems, as are many other countries of the Mediterranean Basin, and, like other major ecosystems I am researching is home to an important, well-researched, and major Tertiary sedimentary basin, that has very little information about it on Wikipedia. So, in spite of the ego deflation that will have to occur, the user I was spying on is E104421, who also has a sufficient science background that he will be able to, and hopefully will be willing to, provide Public Domain photographs relevant to articles Wikipedia needs in natural history areas, in particular the natural history of Turkey. Pages I do edit, research, and/or monitor: plant and botany pages, mediterannean ecosystems, serpentine soils, geology, and battleship pages.

Here is an interesting article on Turkish hyperaccumulators to see the relevance of Turkey to anyone who is interested in edaphic ecosystems. There are more if you want, just contact me, it's a fascinating subject.[65]

However, this is not the point. Tajik was not blocked because I complained. He was blocked because independent administrators agreed with my complaint that he was, again, being uncivil.

But, thanks for the laugh, Tajik. KP Botany 17:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but does not work, because - whatever E104421 may be in real life - 99% of his edits, especially the ones in the last 2 months, have been ONLY about Turkish history and other Turks-related toppics [66]. He was even partly blocked, because there was some speculation about him having sockpuppets (such as User:Karcha).

So, since you were spying on him, you must have had a reason to do so. E104421 had no edits in plants-related articles. So the question remains: how did you get to know him?!

The only logical explanations are that you were either spying on me (= stalking) or that you were contacted by E104421 because he was spying on me and found out that you and me had some disputes going on.

In both cases, you are part of a conspiracy against me, and that's against the rules of Wikipedia. Whatever you have in mind: PLEASE STOP IT AND LEAVE ME ALONE!

Tājik 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Community block for Supreme Cmdr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the issue brought up was charedi not Orthodox. JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Does it really matter what it is JoshuaZ? Whether it was Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or whatever, it was horrible. Personally, I was offended that you tried to justify his words by stating "precedents in some jurisdictions that comments like this one aren't treated the same way as conventional death threats." Not cool and good riddance to him. MetsFan76 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Patstuart, I'm glad to read your refreshing words. If this does have to do with being in a certain sect, then that DEFINITELY does not fly with me either. Personally, I think an indef for Daniel575 would be more appropriate until he realizes his actions are wrong. MetsFan76 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that the user has become completely uncivil in all manner: [67],[68], [69] (said after he removed the said section). He also gave another death-like threat right before these statements: [70].. A look at his contributions reveals as much. Joshua, I know you agree with some of his points, but this is out of totally out of bounds, and I don't see how a simple one-week block is justified, considering past behavior. Only a longer block may get him to consider that disruption, rudeness, and death threats are totally wrong. Statements like Thank G-d the guy is dead and rotting, and if he weren't dead, I would kill him myself, with my own bare hands. I would tie his hands and feet, and beat him until he died. Get it? Don't you dare telling me such things. And don't you are ever calling yourself a Jew or any of your whole heretical Christian sect by any name which includes the word 'Judaism'. are so out of bounds as to constitute banning. If this kind of thing were said about another other race or religion, would it not get the ban-hammer? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support as well. In my opinion from working on dispute resolution involving him, Daniel is absolutely incorrigible. As mentioned above, he responded to his RFC with indifference and ridicule, and he is extremely aggressive toward anyone who disagrees with him. Put this to rest once and for all. --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Indef is too harsh. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think indef is too harsh as well. First time I ever agree with Nielswik on anything. - crz crztalk 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think it is too harsh? In the time Daniel has been here has had so no sign of improvement and little willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. JoshuaZ 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as well. How is this too harsh? From what I have seen, nothing really intelligent came out of Daniel...only hate. MetsFan76 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in essence, he's disruptive and very fresh and he does editwar a lot, but he did not deliver a death threat IMO, and he did contribute productively quite often... - crz crztalk 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've not looked fully at Daniel's full contribution to disruption ratio but I'm inclined to think that his death threat style commentary alone warrants indef. blocking. (→Netscott) 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• User:68.30.59.224
• User:68.30.213.53
• User:68.30.22.78
• User:68.30.82.0
• User:70.8.38.190
• User:70.8.138.11
• User:68.30.65.203
• User:66.230.200.100 (another one I had to block; up to the same stuff)

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

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

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

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

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with MONGO. It is amazing how bored I am and how much time I have to devote to this. One might even say I have infinite time to devote to it. Wow MONGO, I bet you're in the shithouse from bringin on this shit-storm. --WhosYourDaddyReally 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what concerns me about this troll. First, the IPs don't match cplot's as confirmed by the usercheck. However, they're all from the same city (Chicago). Are we supposed to believe this guys supposed friends actuallky live in the same city. That strains all credibility. Second, even if it is a group of friends, they're clearly conspiring together to make us look like a bbunch of fools. Third, look at this trolls username: cplot. That expands to "communist plot". That could be what we're dealing with. cplot and all his communist friends have banded together to conspire and make us look like a bunch of assholes. But that's not all. They seem to pretend they don't k now exactly what's going on here: like there's some doubt in their mind of what the actual scenario they're combatting. That's the tipical MO for communists who have an inside man they're trying to protect. Now look at this evidence. C-P-L-O-T, that's five letters. M-O-N-G-O,that's five letters too. I think it's clear from this that the inside man must be Mongo. --VIUlyanov 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC) {subst:spa|VIUlyanov}}

And another thing. Look at my user name. Doesn't that sound familiar? We better call NASA or CIA or somebody. This looks pretty scary. --VIUlyanov 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)— VIUlyanov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above editor has created an account specifically to comment on this ANI entry. Probably a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the user that is the subject of this. Consider nature of his comments. Please take action as appropriate. --Jayron32 04:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Heated dispute could do with additional eyes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And see my response. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Frankly, this edit - particularly its charming edit summary - could get him a longer block, and at least suggests the initial block was warranted. Proto::type 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've commented a few times about the usage by some wikipedinas of such language in this noticeboard and everytime i've been said to shut up. It's been like if it was me who uses that garbage language. Weird, weird stuff. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all about the context it's used in; Wikipedia is not censored, but telling someone to 'fuck off' is clearly rude, and incivil. Proto::type 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fys' probation (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom) also allows admins to ban him from any article he edits disruptively. I haven't looked into the situation, but suggest this as a possibility once a shorter term block expires. Thatcher131 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I find Fys' entire approach bloody aggravating. He is still arguing about how he was right all along (despite the fact that nobody else seems to agree), and is now producing sources which, had he provided them earlier instead of simply edit-warring, would have made some difference in the first place - and even that is missing the point because he has yet to acknowledge that this was not simple vandalism (per the judgement of every admin who's looked at it); he is also insisting that good faith be applied to him while assuming exclusively bad faith on the part of others. His past history of disputes on biographies of political figures indicates that this is a stable feature of his editing. He is wasting people's time with low drama when a more reasonable person would have fixed the problem by not citing an attack blog in the first place and certainly by not continuing to report it as vandalism after it had been pointed out to him that it was not. He cannot possibly be in any doubt that this kind of behaviour is disruptive and counter-productive, yet he persists. "Sorry, I'll source it better" or "sorry, I'll take it to talk" would almost certainly have worked - "unblock me now, I was reverting vandalism" when he's been told several times that it isn't vandalism was never going to work. As a desysopped former admin, he clearly has a working knowledge of policy, and cannot possibly be unaware of the issues to do with WP:LIVING, especially after the arbitration case. The major problem then was edit warring instead of discussion, and that is precisely the problem again here, so I will endorse without hesitation any escalation of this block. It is quite a feat to make me in any way sympathetic towards a member of the Monster Raving Tory Party, but Fys has managed it; that much, at least, he can count as an achievement. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a one month ban from all political biographies, enforceable by blocking, as provided under the probation? Thatcher131 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Christ knows. I despair, I really do. Fys is an idiot, and I have told him so in as many words. What on earth is the point of baiting people when you want them to help you, and demanding that you are treated as a valued contributor when you have an ArbCom sanction against you? He has behaved like a spoilt child from beginning to end, expecting us to take his word as a desysopped serial disruptor of political biographies against the removal of material based on an attack blog from a WP:LIVING article. Oh yes, that was bound to work, wasn't it? Especially as he then decided to drip-feed the information he should have provided up front if he actually wanted to enlist any support. What a titanic waste of everyone's time.

He has undertaken not to repeat the behaviour and to take it to mediation, which is fine by me and I have unblocked him on that basis, but please, everyone, feel free to slap him with a 40lb Wikitrout if he even so much as thinks of resuming his edit war. I'll be off to choir practice soon. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the case of User:Tobias Conradi → [71]. Maybe a mentorship would help but maybe a former admin would not agree on that! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What JzG should have thought is this: if blocking produces a "titanic waste of everyone's time", why did you do it in the first place? You didn't need to. If you'd come and asked me not to edit the page, but to provide evidence for the notability of the mention, then I would have spent time doing that and not arguing about the block. Blocking always exacerbates a dispute. In all the cases where I've been blocked, it has been accepted in the end that the position I promoted was the right one. PS Thatcher, I think that would be a very bad idea. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. It was your attitude that wasted time. Your time and ours. As my mum used to say, "it must be lovely to be right all the time". You have to read that with a really heavy overtone of sarcasm for the full effect, obviously. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

However

Just because Fys shouldn't have been revert warring here doesn't mean that Detox is correct. The account has 11 contribs to date, and that vandalism, such as this. As Fys states, the article Anne Milton has been the "target" of single-purpose accounts before (as unfortunately is par for the course for a public political figure). It would help if someone knowledgeable in British politics took a closer look at the statements in the article. (Radiant) 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You may note that I left a message to that effect on User talk:Detoxification. It is probably significant that the edit you link above applies the same epithet to Ireland as he applies to Milton. It seems to me as if the two sides are bringing their fight to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the case is this important, and in case this behaviour persists, why not ban Fys from editing such articles as per Thatcher above? Maybe Detox would deserve the same if the case is presented to the ArbCom! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, prior to applying a broad block an admin would need to investigate per Radiant's point above. If two people are edit warring a unilateral block might make things worse and be inequitable to boot. But, the probation makes it at least possible to apply a more targeted remedy than a site ban. Thatcher131 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the single-purpose accounts disrupt articles and refuse to engage in dialogue then they can simply be blocked. Tim Ireland obviously hates Anne Milton with a passion, and the feeling is quite likely mutual. Their views on each other may be notable, the specifics of their spat probably are not. But I leave that to the mediators and editors on those articles. What is clearly unacceptable is edit-warring by Fys, whose tendentious editing of political biographies has been documented by ArbCom and resulted in his desysopping and sanctions. This is, I would suggest, irrespective of the other parties involved. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not "tendentious editing" which was at the heart of the ArbCom case. The desysopping was prompted by an unconnected incident and only passed because I declared I would not have the article ban at any price. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom case documents your tendentious editing. Dress it up how you like. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued trolling

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I have archived Fys' trolling from my Talk page. If anyone thinks it should also be removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for JzG is free to do so, I don't think either the question or the reply tell the world much about me other than that I'm an admin who is willing to block aggressively tendentious editors aggressive edit warriors. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NB I thought JzG's change of mind between his first and second version here was significant so I've preserved it using strikeout. Of course his desire to censor his ArbCom questions is also significant but I don't think anyone else would be so silly as to accede to this request. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would prefer the latter version, but am quite happy with either. You are a tendentious editor, that is, an editor with strong bias who edits aggressively and disruptively. Dress it up how you like. Incidentally, congratulations on using the word censorship, the reliable benchmark indicator of someone without a leg to stand on. As any admin knows, an allegation of censorship, especially when applied to the suggested removal of trolling, is without exception proof positive that trolling is precisely what's going on. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that you are asking for the removal of legitimate questions, I'd say the word I used was entirely appropriate. You didn't have to go from the general to the specific in answering the question but you chose to. Now you want to have the entire section removed. Mistake on your part, perhaps. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See those two words at the beginning of the sentence? I dispute that your attempts to save face after being blocked for a particularly stupid bit of edit-warring, including a 3RR violation which which you quite plainly knew was unacceptable, amounts to a legitimate question. Whether it stays as an example of your idiocy or gets removed, I don't actually care overmuch. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

KrishnaVindaloo holding articles hostage

This is a user with a litany of complaints logded against him. He has been caught lying about contents of reference and is generally just stubborn and uncooperative. In an ongoing effort to insert poorly sources information into Pseudoscience, KrishnaVindaloo has most recently left threatening edit summaries that can be summarized as "don't revert my edits or else..." I personally have just been asking him to supply us (the editors on Pseudoscience) with a means of accessing the source material or to merely give us a direct quote that shows us that the source states what he claim it states. While this isn't required, I was made weary of his source the first time he tried to introduce it and made it state something that the source did not state (I at least learned this from a summary of the source).

Anyhow, before I make your head spin with all of the details, let me get to the matter at hand. KrishnaVindaloo has now opted to take Chiropractic hostage to "teach us all a lesson". His last comment on the talk page there reads like a ransom note:

Things are not going so well on the PS article due to some rather silly and short-sighted arbitration inducing behaviour of some editors. I just added some information to this article that I realize some editor here will not like very much. I will remove it myself if things go more smoothly on the PS article. I trust editors here can cooperate. 09:16, 1 December 2006

His edit summaries there are more of the same threats:

removed criticisms and nonMS chiro research. Restoral will depend on what happens in the PS article. Cooperation is recommended. 09:23, 1 December 2006

KrisnhaVindaloo is editor who does not wish to collaborate. While these topics we edit are heated and KrishnaVindaloo is on the other side of the debate from me, please don't think that this is my reasoning for bringing this up here now. KrishnaVindaloo has even managed to lose even those who are "on his side" of this debate and now want nothing to do with him.

For more information about editors complaints about this editor please see:

• Wikiquette Alerts
• Admin noticeboard
• Request for Arbitration

• Admin Noticeboard

• Admin's talk page

I don't claim to know what action is appropriate. Perhaps a block is finally in order? Any help or guidance you can provide will be much appreciated. Thank you. Levine2112 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Levine2112's motion here and share his concerns. Even though I often side with the POV that Krishna represents, I find his uncollaborative attitude to be abhorrent. He continually twists the disputes about his personal mannerisms to make them look like disputes about NPOV, RS, etc.. That is certainly part of the problem at times, but the underlying red thread that runs through all controversies involving his edits (and there are always controversies!!) is his uncollaborative attitude.

In connection with these disputes, I have repeatedly seen the following phrase used as a weapon by Krishna, who will not collaborate with editors who hold opposing POV, simply because he is convinced that he is right (and he may well be, but his attitude stinks....):

"NPOV policy trumps consensus."

Yes, but the nature of editing at Wikipedia means that an assumption of good faith involves collaborative editing. An editor who fails to collaborate, no matter how right and proper their edits are in relation to all policies, will not succeed. In practice,

"Collaboration trumps all other policies."

Without collaboration between editors of opposing POV nothing functions as intended, and Wikipedia policies won't work in an uncollaborative environment. Krishna's editing here is doomed to fail until he learns this. His presence here does nothing but create severe irritation, edit wars, and lots of wasted time. Nothing has helped so far, so I recommend a block of at least a week. Shorter than that won't affect him at all. -- Fyslee 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur also. I have seen him lie, posting a source and claiming it supports his edits, and upon investigating the source it in no way even mentions the topic! When confronted with this, he keeps adding the content anyway, repeating "NPOV trumps consensus" like it was a magical mantra to make all his edits unassailable - meanwhile ignoring that he has no source. He is incredibly hostile and self rightous, and I have never seen him actually work with other editors. He wasted my time and irritated me beyond expression.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs)

KV may very well be one of the most tendentious, disruptive and dishonest editors I have ever had the displeasure of having to deal with. There's no need to magnify what has been said above: all of it is true and painful. KV simply refuses to cooperate, refuses to follow policies and guidelines, refuses to respect his fellow editors and refuses to take responsibility for his mideeds. On top of this, his tendentious edits and pigheaded attitude have caused good editors to leave either the pages he has worked on, or, in one case, Wikipedia itself. This simply must stop. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

At this stage a block is unquestionably warranted, it's just a question of how long it should be. My immediate reaction is that he should be blocked indefinitely on the understanding that an unblock will happen only when he undertakes to stop the behaviour which is causing the problem. Whether this should be done by way of an emergency injunction on the RFAR or whether we should simply block him. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The personal attacks and tendentious editing should be enough on its own, but to top it off, absolutely nothing has been accomplished since KV returned from his three week vacation. Please give us another vacation from him so we can once again concentrate our efforts on more positive contributions to WP. --Dematt 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I have blocked KV. Please feel free to review, or to pile in on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Support this block. This user needs to be sent a strong message that his style of editing is not acceptable. This problem has be long in the making and needs to end now. KV needs to clearly state that he intends to change the way that he interacts with other users or stay blocked. --FloNight 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SETI Consipracy keeps being removed!

The SETI section keeps getting removed! here is the debate I have been having:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chairboy#SETI
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nima_Baghaei#SETI_Contacts

I am very frustrated by this, and I would like first, for someone to look into CHAIRBOY conduct, I do not think he understand that there are other wikipedia conspiracy articles that are similar fashion! If he removes my section, which he just did, he must go through and remove every single conspiracy section in wikipedia similar in fashion, because its a universal structure the way these sections are designed and referenced. nima baghaei 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy is right. Searching at google news for that we get nothing. Indeed the youtube video you included doesn't work. Please stop reinserting it. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue revolves around the fact that the section being removed (which makes a spectacular claim) does not provide a reference that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources and appear to constitute WP:NOR. There has also been a discussion on Talk:SETI that the user above forgot to mention which also covers this in depth. As I've told nima baghaei (talk • contribs), this is not something that's being done because it's a conspiracy theory, it's a proper handling of unsourced attempts at using Wikipedia as an original research platform to create media attention. The user made what appears to be a vaguely menacing comment on my talk page to the effect that he/she "hopes that (I) hear from" them soon, but that may be a language difficulty. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A further update, Danlibbo (talk • contribs • count) has explicitly threatened to edit war over this issue. As I'm involved in the editing of the page in question, I'd like another admin to be available to perform any needed corrective action if he/she makes good on the threat. I've informed them that edit warring is unacceptable, perhaps a correlation to that effect from someone else might help keep the user on the straight and true. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Land of Bosoni

Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a.k.a. Ancient Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a.k.a. Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been causing considerable disruption via:

• repeatedly removing XfD notices [72][73]
• repeatedly adding non-free images to his user page [74][75]
• vandalism [76]
• disrupting Wikipedia to make a point/gaming the system/assuming bad faith by posting reports on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents alleging bad faith on the part of and requesting blocks against users who have nominated his pages for deletion. [77][78][79]
• creating non-notable articles (e.g., Gojko Janković, Ranko Ćesić)
• vote campaigning through aggressively cross-posting
• posting comments which other users consider to be incivil and/or personal attacks (see User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni#Re: Your personal attack)
• creating POV forks of various pages:
  • Image:Slavic languages.JPG→Image:Slavic languages.JPG
  • List of ICTY indictees→List of Serb war criminals
  • Category:People convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia→Category:Serb war criminals)
• misuse of the "minor" edit summary flag, such as when adding non-free images, or when making controversial edits

The user has been warned about the above, in some cases repeatedly. It seems that every time he's warned about a particular disruptive behaviour, he goes on to commit a completely different one. It may be useful to block this user until such time as he confirms that he has read and agreed to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:N, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SPAM, WP:MINOR, WP:POINT, and WP:COPY. —Psychonaut 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd account listed was blocked indefinately for copyright fraudulence, so that might be grounds for blocking all the rest of them. 68.39.174.238 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any prior blocks for any of the accounts. Perhaps you're confusing this user with someone else…? —Psychonaut 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to add high incivility (a near-personal attack against me and User:Duja) on my talk page. --PaxEquilibrium 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, I was thinking of Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see "serial copyright violator" section above. Sorry to everyone for confusing the two. 68.39.174.238 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rocket to Russia / Heat transfer

I don't know if this is where I should bring this up or if anyone can do anything about it but here's the problem:

On the page Rocket to Russia there is all this stuff from the heat transfer page at the bottom. I can't edit it doesn't show up in the edit box. I guess it's a bigger problem or something. – Zntrip 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was from vandalism to {{Ramones}}; fixed by Melchoir. Chick Bowen 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I was about to tell you that {{Ramones}} had been vandalized, but it looks that that was your edit! I suppose it was some kind of mistake, then. It should be fine now. Melchoir 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my edit, take a look. I was the last person to edit it before Melchoir reverted it... wierd. – Zntrip 07:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A system-wide glitch yesterday apparently caused several hundred of these situations to occur involving large portions of a page being copied into an unrelated page. See discussion on Village Pump/Technical. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi, can someone please take a look at the conduct of of this user? He recently requested unprotection for a page, only to revert it immediately following unprotection. Jidan has been continually edit warring against 4-5 other editors (and also against consensus), and now he's solicitating meatpuppets in an ethnically-biased and bad faith manner, labeling the opposing editors as "Israelis and Iranians". [80] [81] Also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jidan and [82] Thanks, Khoikhoi 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accusation was not proven. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 06:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The RFCU result was that Jidan possibly uses a sockpuppet. Everything Jidan seems to be doing on Wikipedia is changing the ethnicities of various people to "Arab". Given his history of edit warring, disruption, incivility, and now apparently sockpuppetry, a permananet ban or, if not, a long block does not look unjustified. Beit Or 11:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting meatpuppets is bad. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Threat?

I recently received this threat from a user (using a sockpuppet) whose block I declined to undo due to his edits. What is the proper course of action for this, if any? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, user dealt with, at least temporarily, by Wangi. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What he's threatening is to "have you uninstated". Is that a crime? Michael Hardy 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that means "adminship removed". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about the "uninstated" part (is that even a word?). I'm more concerned about the "not so pretty" part. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's so unspecific that it's hard to identify it as anything in particular. Michael Hardy 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Block review - User:Walter Humala

I blocked Walter Humala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for this edit. There is also some recent vandalism [83] that was self-reverted, but my major reason for blocking was the apparent (possibly joking) attempt to create a vandal bot and the personal threat. If someone wants to look over this block I'd appreciate it. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what to do about that myself. There appears to be no good contributions to any articles, almost all edits have been to his own userpage - so no great loss either way. Wiki is not a free webhost anyway, and thats what it appears the userpage was being used for. Viridae^Talk 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Users have been indefinitely blocked for threats, so I think this isn't too out there. Hbdragon88 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

His still-open request for unblock, which I recently saw, amounts to "it was a joke". I don't find such jokes very funny and I have no objections to this block, although I probably wouldn't have been as bold. Sandstein 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed his unblock request and changed to a 24-hour block. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks, harrassment, baiting and pestering by user:Oden

User Oden (talk · contribs) has been recently involved exclusive in a controversial activity of challenging selected by him users attacking their images. I put aside for now the issue of the interpretation of the WP:FU policy as good people obviously disagree in good faith on the policy interpretation as well as the policy itself. However, even if one chooses to take upon himself such a sensitive task as implementing a policy for the good of Wikipedia, such task can only be taken with utmost sensitivity to other editors. With a couple of other editors joining what many perceived as a disruptive crusade in whose process the worst attitudes were displayed, several editors opened a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali against one of such crusaders. Notably, the RfC is not about the policy or implementing an unpopular policy but about the unacceptable attitude and abusive Harassment.

Shortly after, user:Oden posted to the RfC this disgusting attack directed at all the involved editors bringing all sorts of unrelated issues that had no relation to what the RfC was about thus substituting tackling the issue with attacking the opponents. And hour or so ago Admin:Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who was not involved in the dispute in any way gave Oden a (rather soft IMO) warning reminding of WP:NPA and WP:Harassment policies. Reaction of user:Oden was this barrage of irregular stuff.

When I commented on his response as being lacking the substance, Oden responded by a series of entries [84][85][86] where he baits Khoikhoi and brings up another barrage of irrelevant stuff (see also WP:DFTT#Pestering).

Third party input is requested. --Irpen 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past contributions of the other editors contributing to the RfC.

• WP:NPA states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

• WP:STALK states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

• Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Wikipedia are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why User:Khoikhoi reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).

Final note: User:Irpen's comment on my talk page (at 6:29 UTC) came after I left my first response and second response on User:Khoikhoi's talk page (4:29 UTC and 6:04 UTC). I must be very talented indeed to be able to see into the future!

User:Khoikhoi has as of yet not responded. I will leave a message on his talk page urging him to comment here. --Oden 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This "response" illustrates the user well on top of the original diffs above. Please check his "comments" at the RfC linked above and match them with his response (along with this protracted baiting of Khoikhoi who rightfully warned the user). It is easy to tell between trolling and proper discussions. --Irpen 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi (who is an admin/sysop) has as of yet not responded. From my first response at 4:29 UTC until now he has made almost 40 edits, so apparently he's online. I have stated on his talk page that his failure to respond stands in sharp contrast to the serious tone in his warning where he threatened me with "blocks with the length being increased each time" (diff). His first signal was that he was to busy to respond (diff), his second that he was too lazy (diff). --Oden 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Oden has asked me to provide a comment here. When I saw Oden mention my name in his list of monsters and vandalizers I was quite insulted. I agree with User:Irpen and User:khoikhoi that User:Oden's comments were highly inappropiate. Dionyseus 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I really can't see that Odin has done anything out of line here. He mentioned that we'd all been blocked before, and that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Not a particularly helpful comment, but not a "disgusting attack" either. Note that I was one of the editors mentioned by Odin in his so-called "disgusting attack", and I just can't find any way to be offended. This is really a tempest in a teacup. I guess Odin should doublecheck his comments in such a delicate situation to make sure he won't offend the thin-skinned. But really, Irpen's comments above seem at least as provocative as Odin's. I think all involved should take a deep breath, assume good faith, and get over it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to comment, but I shall. Oden has been contributing to the RfC noted above by Irpen, however his contributions haven't been especially helpful. While most editors involved in the discussion have been obviously frustrated with each other and the debate has been quite heated at times, Oden's comments haven't really been about the RfC at hand so much as about policy. For example, he posted a lengthy screed on the RfC talk page about how the RfC has turned into a policy debate, however pretty much the only comments he's made that aren't an attempt to "call out" Irpen have been repeated posts about policy. I don't know if it's intentional or not but he isn't really doing much except to stoke the flames. TheQuandry 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find his comments on RfC to be offensive and incivil, bordering on trolling (comparing block logs, yeah that gives a true measure... <_<). It violated quite a few basic policies and should imho be dealt with accordingly. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost vandalized!

Please check it out -- Polaris999 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Signpost has had no edits in four days...What exactly were you drawing our attention to? Essjay (Talk) 08:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All I can find is this edit to his user page, indicating that the {{Signpost-subscription}} template was vandalized, but the only edit remotely close to that is this edit to {{Signpost-textonly}}... so I don't know. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When I logged on to my User Page a short while ago, there was an extremely inappropriate image at the top of the Signpost "front page" and below it was a comment by a vandal, something to the effect that "(X) rules!" I removed the Signpost template from my User Page and that solved the problem there. I subsequently looked at the Talk page of another user who I remembered has Signpost on her page (DakotaKahn) and the vandalism was visible there too. It is not visible there now, but the title "Signpost" is not displayed as it normally is which may be an after-effect of the vandalism. -- Polaris999 08:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the image that is used for the header was vandalized on Commons; it's very important to be specific about what has taken place, because we can't fix it unless we know what we're looking for. Essjay (Talk) 08:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do apologize: in my rush to get rid of the offensive image, I failed to protect important evidence. Should I encounter vandalism of this type again, I will be much more careful and make a screen-shot of it, etc. -- Polaris999 09:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well we don't need a screenshot. :) We would just like to have something like your second post in this thread. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

List of idioms in the English language (A)

Hello Wikipedia.

I am a Wiktionary contributor, sysop, checkuser, and bot operator.

I responded to a query on wikt:WT:ID today, about List of idioms in the English language (A). Apparently, I've uncovered several major problems with interproject coordination.

• On the closed AfD page, right up at the top, it says:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

So, in order to get this artice transwiki'ed, I did the most natural thing in the world. I followed the link for "deletion review." I expected the entry to be restored to the main namespace and tagged with {{Copy to Wiktionary}} so that my User:CopyToWiktionaryBot could move the entry to Wiktionary, where it belongs, so that it can then be deleted here. To compose the "deletion review" I had to check back with the AfD.

• Looking closer at the AfD, I noticed several bizarre things. Nearly every "delete" vote suggested transwiki-ing. Most "keep" votes did also! Yet at no time did the article seem to get tagged for transwiki. Instead, a certain contingent claimed "victory" and deleted useful(?) content.

• Looking closer still at the AfD, it seems some very convoluted arguments were being put forth for deletion, inexplicably. Not knowing any better, it seems to me (an outsider on this issue) to be some kind of vendetta. Even though there is no cabal, the group suggesting deletion certainly gives me the impression that there is.

• By the time I next visited Wikipedia, my "deletion review" had been "speedily closed" with non sequitur comments such as "as we don't have juristiction over Wiktionary." Additionally, the most ardent "delete" supporters were the only ones to comment there...but, there is no cabal.

• The comment from User:Elaragirl was particularly concerning: "Endorse Deletion. SIXTEEN deletes. FOUR transwiki. Where do you see a consensus to transwiki? The article was a mess, the AfD was properly closed, and the only consensus I can find is that most people felt that transwikiing was the wrong move. Ask for a userfy. You are not following process, and quite frankly, deliberately misrepresenting a clear-cut AfD decision."
  • First of all, most of the "delete" votes suggested "dicdef" or "WPINAD" or "transwiki".
  • Next: adding the "keep" votes and the "transwiki" votes show no clear majority to delete. Have Wikipedia deletion processes changed that much recently?
  • Next: The AfD can't have been properly closed if it wasn't transwikied first.
  • Next: As of right now, I've never seen the entry, so I can't comment on the unlikely comment "The article was a mess." My only involvement here is to get it transwikied to Wiktionary. But if (A) is anything like (B), then you must be an extraordinarily picky person, to call it "a mess."
  • Next: A userfy deliberately invalidates the transwiki automation.
  • Next: I am following the directions on the page I was presented with, Ma'am.
  • Next: Elaragirl is deliberately misrepresenting the AfD and slandering me, why?

Now, I know that it is my personal choice to avoid Wikipedia. Did I really do something wrong here? Why was this onslaught so vitriolic? (Note: Elaragirl was not alone in his/her vehemence...just the most abrasive of the comments there.)

Do Wikipedians, in general, really have no clue whatsoever, as to how Transwiki works? The old-style copy of articles was abandoned as soon as the MediaWiki software allowed a GFDL compliant method. "Userfy" (if I understand your jargon correctly) is not a viable option.

--One very upset Wiktionarian, Connel MacKenzie - wikt 10:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (Yes, I will make a point of visiting back here on Wikipedia tomorrow to look for helpful comments.)

The whole lot of them have been userfied to West London Dweller's userspace pending a transwiki and are pending deletion in the main namespace. A transwiki was determined to be unnecessary because Wiktionary covers this topic to a much greater depth with hundreds more than what we had. It's obvious that this stuff doesn't belong here because Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a publisher of original thought, the articles were completely unreferenced and not every phrase on the list was an idiom. But that's not the issue here. You can grab the rest before they are gone.

If you look at the userfied copy, you'd see the history is still there, but for the ones that aren't deleted yet it isn't. MER-C 10:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. A transwiki was inappropriate. Does Wiktionary do lists? At any rate, it seems as though the exhaustive Wiktionary category for idioms covers this far better than a list would do. Transwiki to where? Per MER-C, the list self-evidently did not belong here, at any rate. Suggesting that there is a "vendetta" on behalf of Wikipedians towards any article is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Your further hints at the existence of some cabal that pursues this vendetta are also objectionable. The "Deletionist Cabal" is nothing more than a joke page at Meta, I'm afraid. Complaining that the AFD was "disgusting" is furthermore a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CIVIL. As far as I'm aware a "Transwiki" vote basically adds up to "Get it out of Wikipedia, but please do send it elsewhere". Both the AFD and the DRV were correctly closed. Moreschi 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

After several blatant violations of WP:CIVIL in the initial AfD itself (search "whining") your accusation is very misplaced. The cabal in question has been decidedly uncivil, long before my involvement in this matter.

Yes, Wiktionary has lists. They are reformatted into the Appendix: namespace. But what does that matter to a transwiki? You (Wikipedia) are transwiki-ing items precisely because you have no way of knowing what does or does not meet our (Wiktionary) criteria for sure!

"Userfy" is inappropriate. My bot does not select items from the user namespace, nor should it!

Thank you for clarifying that no one on the Wikipedia side has the slightest clue as to how a Transwiki is performed.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't HAVE to transwiki with a bot. And where do you get off complaining about "blatant violations of WP:CIVIL", after accusing people who happen to agree with each other of being a cabal, especially with "Thank you for clarifying that no one on the Wikipedia side has the slightest clue as to how a Transwiki is performed"? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that your response here is uncivil, unhelpful, and contrary to the aims of our project, whereas his is truthful. Dmcdevit·t 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything about this situation is absolutely demented. You don't need a consensus for transwiki. That's a stupid idea. You don't ever refuse to transwiki when someone wants it. Would everyone please take a minute to think about this: Wiktionary is a sister project of Wikipedia's. There, people just like yourself are engaged in the same broader project of collecting knowledge in a free format, only their category of knowledge is different from ours. If you've ever read a news article about Wikipedia that made you incensed, or even just a little bit mad, because the writer clearly wasn't even familiar with Wikipedia, (saying things like "there's no requirement for accuracy" or citing a vandalized revision that existed for two minutes as evidence of unreliability) then you'll know how you sound to a Wiktionarian. If you aren't a Wiktionarian and aren't familiar with the inclusion criteria, then you have no business specifying whether something should not be allowed to be transwikied, when someone from Wiktionary asks for it. It's very disappointing the way Wikipedians treat the other projects, and it's nothing new. If Wiktionary had an acceptable Wikipedia article, should we be subject to the whims of their deletion process: if they decide that transwiki is a bad idea, we shouldn't get it? If someone from Wiktionary comes here and tells us that his bot can't transwiki userspace items, the proper response is to lave aside the process for a minute and help; telling him to just do it manually is insulting. Dmcdevit·t 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I made it very clear in my closing statement that if someone wants to transwiki it they only need to ask me. I have no issue with it, but the mandate wasn't clear enough for me to automatically put it on the transwiki backlog and expect it to be moved in two or three months. In addition the article was wholly unsourced, so keeping it in the article space was not an option. Connel, like anyone else, could've just simply contacted me on my talk page and asked for userfication, or even ask for a temporary restoration in article space to let the bot do its work. But seemingly his MO is to assume bad intent on the closer's side, misrepresent the outcome of the AfD and tie everybody's time up with unnecessary procedural discussions. WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL nowhere to be seen. With such an attitude Amarkov's unwillingness to jump up and help in any possible way is perfectly understandable. In any case it seems like the bot his done its work so I redeleted the article. For future encouters I propose people try to check back with the closing admin first before they bust a vein in their foreheads. ~ trialsanderrors 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Folks, the whole reason we do transwikis to a Transwiki: pseudo-namespace is that the policy on meta indicates that we do so in order to allow the other project to pick if they want it or not. So, if we do not want something, and it fits into another project, we send it, and then we allow the other sister project to decide whether they want it or not. It is not our call. I have half a mind to undelete it myself and poke Connel to run his bot, but it's too early in the morning to cause an edit war... Titoxd^(?!?) 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Dmcdevit and Tawker. Let Wiktionary decide what to do with the information. I have moved this to the original article title so the transwikibot can run properly. It is tagged for transwiki and will dissapear soon so the righteous Wikipedians who are so offended won't have long to wait before they can sleep again. Sheesh. Be nice to your sister projects. pschemp | talk 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! The main namespace entries have been transwikied. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 08:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaakko Sivonen

I ran into this user via a 3RR vio check and saw this block log. I blocked the user for 96 hours for his 4th 3RR vio in the last month. Could someone review this and see if it should be extended? He just got off of a one week block for personal attacks. I didn't go longer than 96 hours because he was blocked just 48 hours for his last 3RR vio. But if someone more knowledgable on this user's activities wants to block him for longer, be my guest. Doesn't seem to be a quick learner. :) Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of extenting the block for this personal attack: "I really think you should get a life and seek professional help. --Jaakko Sivonen 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)" [87] I plan to extend it to one week and monitor the user after this block. IMO, if this type of PA and pattern of disruptive editing continues after these warning and blocks than a much longer block is needed. FloNight 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse a longer block fully. This guy is here only to disrupt 3 or 4 articles with POV and does not give a damn about the rules. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Afrika paprika. All self-confirmed and evident. He has been banned - but that ban gave no effect as he kept returning for all these weeks (months?). --PaxEquilibrium 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you telling us? What is it that you want an administrator to do? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just alertin'... there are possibilities that he will register again (already once registered) and we might not recognize him/her. --PaxEquilibrium 11:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe

This user being an admin was engaged in rewert-warring in Josef Stalin with other users. Seeing he is in minority, he indefblocked all his opponents (including me, who did only one edit), falsefully accusing them in meatpuppetry. He later refused to unblock me until I change my political views [88] and confess my edits to be wrong. Your comments.--Nixer 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not require any further admin intervention, but I do take issue with Zoe's misuse of the rollback tool. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one do not. "Being in the minority" hardly applies when the majority consists of a load of socks. "To a certain extent through heroic figures like Klaus Fuchs, the brilliant activities of the Soviet intelligence service resulted in the early loss of America's monopoly on the destructive atomic bomb." is clearly POV pushing that should be cut. Other edits by Zvesda clearly suggest a virulently pro-Stalin POV. [89] is perhaps the best example. Zoe was entirely correct in reverting, with rollback or no rollback. Allegations of near-3RR on behalf of Zoe are just plain wrong. Admins should be able to do their job without getting whacked over the head by a lynch mob at ANI, especially when dealing with individuals with block logs the length of your arm - quite literally. Moreschi 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean admins have special rights to push their POV? And how many sockpuppets do you see there?--Nixer 15:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Zvesda@netscape.net is one, for starters. Indefblocked as such. Moreschi 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - whether the Zvesda account is related to you I do not know, but I assume not - AGF. However, the presence of such socks rather debunks your assertion of a majority agreeing with you. Moreschi 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What socks do you speak about?--Nixer 16:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

These edits are so POV they arguably constitute vandalism. Use of rollback tool was fine. JoshuaZ 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits of user Zoe was simply mass deletion of sourced information, which is much more arguable vandalism.--Nixer 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Zoe has shown commendable behaviour in preventing Wikipedia from being hijacked. --Folantin 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe's reverts have been proper and there are strong indications of sockpuppetry usage in this article. Admins are required to use their best judgement in contentious situations, and Zoe's judgement appears sound. Doc Tropics 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again: where do you see sockpuppets? I see only one sockpuppet of Zvesda user, but he used it after being unjustly blocked (in violation of all rules)--Nixer 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. I blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely for performing the 3RR, and only then did I block Zvesda for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No evidence that Zoe has abused anything here.--MONGO 18:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that our blocking policy states Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.? Shouldn't he have simply contacted another admin to take a look?-Localzuk^(talk) 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, taking a look through the history, I cannot see any more obvious sockpuppetry (other than the user mentioned above). The information, whilst it has POV issues, also contained a variety of sources to back up sections. Zoe appears to be removing this information. This seems like a content disupte and as such should follow our dispute resolution process, not unilaterally blocking editors such as Nixor.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Zoe did not post any message in the talk page where the initial changes by Jacob Peters detally explained.--Nixer 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When engaged in a content dispute, yes, that is the policy. However, Nixer's Block Log is the most extensive testament to disruptive editing that I've ever seen on WP, and his last edit before the block was to restore deleted material that had been posted by a sockpuppet. Under the circumstances, Zoe's actions were totally appropriate, and the block was justified. Doc Tropics 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Now I know that admins have right to block me when they want. One more question though: by which sockpuppet was posted that material? Who of the users is sock? Give us the knowledge!--Nixer 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Excluding Zoe's recent block, Nixer has been blocked thirty times, for a total time of almost two months. At what point do we say enough is enough? Although I don't think Zoe should have blocked indefinitely a user with which she was having a content dispute, the indefinite block was not exactly a bad idea. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Other blocks were the same. POV-pusher admins feel free to block those who do not agree with them in circumvent any rules.--Nixer 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that as an involved party in this dispute, Zoe should have gone elsewhere for admin intervention. If admins are able to just block users regardless of their own involvement in a dispute it starts to give them carte blanche to do what they want, and opens up the floodgates for increases in users crying foul of admin actions (which, having looked at this page for several months are common enough anyway). In a case such as this, even though the block may have been justifiable, outside opinions should have been sought.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How would you justify a block for one edit?--Nixer 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have been consistently disruptive and appear unwilling to stop, a block can be legitimate. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you decide that I am distructive from the blocks? For example, once some users added information into article Comparative military ranks of World War II, which was perverted and vandalized by a vandal Roitr. I reverted them to a consensus version which was edited in a temporary page for more than a month by a number of users, explained the situation, but the users continued to add the info. Then I was blocked for a week. Their edits were completely perverted by Roitr and when unblocked I added manually all their info into non-vandalized version (and now I was supported by even those users). This version continues without sufficient changes until now. But nobody asked me to excuse. After such blocks admins feel free to block me whenever they want.--Nixer 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who is classing this as a content dispute must have far better eyesight than I do. All I can see are edits so obviously POV and trollish in nature ("brilliant and heroic" for some spy???I'm not saying I disagree, but most of America would!) that they desperately needed reverting, and blocks for the users involved. My compliments to Tariqabjotu for counting all those blocks: I gave up halfway through. Enough should have been enough a long time ago, and Zoe's indefblock was entirely correct. Moreschi 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And why we should have here American bias?--Nixer 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. Look, to describe somone - uncited - as brilliant and heroic - is awful POV that the only remedy for is cutting. There was no American bias before that edit - I don't think that person was even mentioned. Even if he had been, provided he had been described in a neutral manner that is not American POV and should not be tampered with.

In fact the article was very biased. But I did not revert to support the "brilliant" wording. In fact I reverted the deletion of the material I've added.--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and your blocks. I don't think you can claim that in each instance of the 30 you were dove-pure innocent, specially when they all seem to say the same thing - 3RR violation. After 30 blocks - no, I don't trust you. Does anyone? Moreschi 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Now any admin feels free to block me.--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This was not a content dispute. Nixer has clearly violated policy, and it was perfectly justified for Zoe to block for those violations. I agree with others that an indef block is long overdue. I would suggest we begin discussion of a possible community ban for this editor; it would certainly seem justified, just on the evidence of his Block Log alone. Doc Tropics 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Which policy did I violate? And if it is violation then why not to block other users who also reverted to the same version (Humbabba, Mista-X, Jacob Peters)?--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I would enthusiastically support a Community ban, something that should have happened a long time ago. Moreschi 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there identified puppet accounts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that a ban is appropiate, but it was not appropiate for User:Zoe to administer it because it was a content dispute she was involved in, she should have asked another administrator to do it. Dionyseus 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That "content dispute" thing at Stalin's page was ridiculous. Its like haveing a "content dispute" with neo-nazis on Hitler page. Just one perfect example of Nixer's propaganda from deportations part: During World War II, the Soviet government conducted a series of deportations. Treasonous collaboration with the invading Germans and anti-Soviet rebellion were the reasons for these deportations., isnt it nice wording, especially considering the fact that first deportations were conducted before barbarossa at the time then USSR and Germany were big friends.--Staberinde 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not me who inserted this. Though the sentence seems right.--Nixer 21:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more I sense something odd going on. User:Jacob Peters and User:Zvesda have eerily similar contributions. Secondly, both accounts have already been blocked for revert/edit/move warring. Deja vu, anyone? [90] Here Zvesda pops up pretty much out of the blue to support Jacob Peter's version in the move wars, which is just a little odd. Zvesda, as we know, has definitely used sockpuppetry. User:Humbabba has an equally suspicious contributions list. I would suggest CheckUser on all of these accounts. Moreschi 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support the checkuser.--Nixer 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way I have to point out that we still have one question we did not answered yet. As said Staberinde, he views defenters of the USSR to be similar to defenders of Nazi Germany. If to accept this point of view, then in fact all those who defend the USSR are disruptors and vandals. But would this be NPOV?--Nixer 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, putting words in my mouth is not effective strategy, if you didnt understood what i meant i suggest to read my comment again.--Staberinde 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While I believe that Zoe should have asked a non-involved admin to review the case 'just to be on the safe side', it is rather obvious he did the 'right thing' by blocking clearly disruptive users.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well. Nice little kerfuffle here while I was out Christmas shopping. Nixer had reverted the ridiculous Soviet propaganda that Zvesda had inserted three time. I warned Zvesda about a three revert warning, and he immediately created User:Karl Fuchs, whcih I immediately warned was going to count as a violation of the 3RR if it was used to attempt to revert the article. Instead, Nixer did the revert. I was planning on blocking Nixer for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but once I saw his block log, I figured that 24 hours would mean nothing to someone who's blocked all the time, and so I initiated an indefeinte block. Remember, please, that indefinite is not permanent. If Nixer had agreed not to re-insert the vandalism, I would have immediately unblocked, but instead he decided to whine. I see that Nixer has been inappropriately unblocked -- a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation, whether performed by one person or by a group of people, and all are to be blocked if they are involved in the violation. I had nothing to do with any sort of conent argument over this article, all I was trying to do was to get rid of Zvesda's silly additions (see the addition to Gulag that he also added, which I also reverted). I told him not to add his personal opinions into articles, and he immediately did it again. I warned him not to 3RR, and he did it with his sock puppet, which I have also indef blocked, and I blocked Zvesda for 24 hours. I have now re-blocked Nixer for 10 hours, which is probably about the length of time his block should have continued. Although why this should have to be discussed, I cannot fathom. Wheel warring over blocks is never appropriate, especially without discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation, whether performed by one person or by a group of people, and all are to be blocked if they are involved in the violation. - What? I am confused - I thought WP:3RR stated an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period. and Using sock puppets (multiple accounts owned by a single user) to avoid this limit is a violation of WP:SOCK, but the policy does not apply to groups.? Doesn't this directly contradict that? Just so we are clear on this. Yes, Nixer's actions seem to have been inappropriate, but 3RR doesn't apply across groups - unless you can show that Nixer is the same person as those other editors. (I would support a checkuser in this case).-Localzuk^(talk) 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, if a certain trolling organization, or Wikipediawatch, or some web forum decided they didn't like a Wikipedia action, all they have to do is to coordinate an attack on an article so that each member only performs three reverts, and we can't do anything about it, even if it's pure nonsense? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser

Her's the CheckUser result, without wading into the middle of the discussion. Nixer is probably not Zvesda, Zvesda@netscape.net, Jacob Peters, Victor Serge, or Klaus Fuchs. However, I can say fairly certanly that all of those accounts are the same person. Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, DMC. I have permablocked all the sockpuppets and gave Jacob 1 week block for his sockpuppeting and block avoidance (on top of his 48h for Holodomor move and edit war). Alex Bakharev 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Humbabba linked to any of those accounts? Best, Moreschi 09:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also how about User:Mikhail Frunze, User:68.126.6.70, User:68.126.240.181, User:68.123.224.156, User:68.123.227.112, User:69.111.8.1? Alex Bakharev 10:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Humbabba looks distinct and Mikhail is too old to check. I can't really make any comment regarding the IPs since I'm not comfortable giving out personally identifiable information yet. If you suspect an IP is being used for block evasion, I'll look at it. Dmcdevit·t 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What should I do?

I have an argument with a user who acused me of being un-heterosexual,plus his comments are greatly homophobic (see:":::Homosexual behavior is activity by persons who have not developed beyond the stage of adolescence. At physical and mental maturity, usually around the age of 24 years, humans are normally heterosexual.Lestrade 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade").Should I do something about this comment?(I think I should,homophobia I belive is not welcome to an online encyclopedia,so I belive someone should do something,I just wanted to ask to make sure I wouldnt act hastily).New Babylon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by New Babylon (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 December 2006.

I think that User:New Babylon is referring to this edit: diff. Also see User talk:Lestrade for more info.--Oden 14:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As intensely stupid as I think Lestrade is if he really believes that, I should point out that his comment was prompted by this from New Babylon:

On September 17, 2006, at 13:16.." that they were merely another example of the widespread intention of homosexuals to use Wikipedia as a way of legitimizing their adolescent behavior."

?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IVE ADDED THAT AND ONLY FROM THE FEELING OF A CRIME BEING DONE AGAINST THE KING IF HE HAS BEEN PORTRAIED BY A WOMAN AND WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HAS INSULTED ME UN-IMAGINABELY!!!!!!!!! The reason for my rather late discovery of your filthy acusation (i am not homophobe BUT I loathe when someone acuses me without proof (nothing against Homosexuals,just a personal feeling of a knife stuck in the back) is that I have not looked on the discusion page for a while.I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!!!!!!!

New Babylon

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well,he acused me in a conversation with someone else,that I just happened to notice.The original was:"On September 17, 2006, at 13:16, I removed two sentences from the article. Those sentences asserted that the part of Zog was portrayed in a film by a female actress. This can be seen by viewing the article's history. It was my belief that the removed sentences were of no informational value and also that they were merely another example of the widespread intention of homosexuals to use Wikipedia as a way of legitimizing their adolescent behavior. Lestrade 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade " (see Talk:Zog of Albania ,"Transgender References") and you have to say I had the right to be a bit steamed,when before,I only added it to show the unfairnes of this arangement,because I believed it to be an insult of the King, whom I admire.So,I dont if I started it.(And to first part of your sentence:He is now,isnt he?)

New Babylon 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

revert war by owner of The Sly Traveler website

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. (various ID's, but typically User:KyndFellow) has been edit-warring (against multiple editors[91][92]) to introduce and repeatedly reinstate POV edits to Sex tourism, and to reinstate his website, The Sly Traveler, to the External links section.

In a current (and probably hung) RfA, one of the Arbs states

"Reject — obvious violations of WP:COI should be handled by the Corps of Administrators, perhaps by putting the subject Web site on the spam block list"

Is this the right place, and can this be done? Site: slyguide(dawt)com

Other remedies suggested here: Talk:Sex_tourism#What_I_want_from_this_arbitration.

The RfA was initiated by Mr. Knodel, apparently as an attempt to freeze the article with his website linked from Wikipedia for as long as possible [93] [94] [95].

The article has already been the subject of an RfC, and there has been a SockPuppetry investigation. Neither persuaded Mr. Knodel except to become more loudly defensive.

About 90kB of text has been added to the Discussion page where Mr. Knodel has WikiLawyered, unilaterally declared arbitrary rules, resolutions and moratoria (always favoring retention of his edits), purported insubstantial changes to be cooperation, acted put-upon and persecuted, canvassed[96][97][98][99] , misrepresented (and deleted[100][101][102][103]) other editors comments, ignored feedback from several editors, and put on a puppet show.

Mr. Knodel's POV edits include deleting text critical of Sex Tourism (including links to United Nations & Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, which he dismisses as "advocacy groups"), and inserting sex tourism industry "promotional" edits. Many examples can be found in the article history.

And always, he links his website. [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]

Linking The Sly Traveller appears to be Mr. Knodel's driving issue. His other edits are probably intended to defend and promote traffic to his website. — edgarde 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that the concept of a 'hung' ArbCom doesn't apply here. The case had three 'accept' votes at the time this section was posted; a fourth was posted a couple of hours later, indicating that the ArbCom will definitely be hearing this case. Edgarde might not be familiar with the somewhat slower pace associated with formal Arbitration..

In any case, since this matter is now before the ArbCom, I encourage admins to handle it with caution. To Edgarde or anyone else who wishes to have some sort of binding resolution in place before the entire Arbitration is complete, might I suggest requesting an appropriate temporary injunction from the ArbCom? I would also advise and encourage anyone taking an administrative action that it would be sensible to report it on the appropriate Arb page, just to keep the ArbCom in the loop. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently the vote is (4/1/0/0). If I understand the ArbCom procedure (and I may not), a net 4 votes is required, and as there is currently 1 dissenting vote, there is nothing definite about this going to arbitration. Furthermore, there haven't been more than 5 votes on any Arbitration in at least a couple months. There are only 9 "active" arbitrators, and some ain't that active.

My filing this report here was upon the suggestion of an ArbCom member.

Also, can you suggest how I would request an injunction? I feel like I'm already asking too much, and seeing fairly little interest. — edgarde 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the case will either be accepted for arbitration or not within the next couple of days. If any arbitrators are reading here who have not yet voted, I urge that you do so so that the parties will know where they stand. Newyorkbrad 15:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You can request an injunction in a couple of ways. Before the case is opened, I would suggest just making an explicit request in your statement.

If this case is accepted, I would apply for an immediate injunction barring Mr. Knodel (or anyone) from adding a link to the Sly Traveler to sex tourism/barring Mr. Knodel from editing sex tourism or related articles/barring the involved parties from editing sex tourism or related articles.. (Pick one or more and edit as appropriate.)

After the case is opened, there will be a place on the case subpage where you can request an injunction.

The four net votes thing is unusual. I'm wondering where it came from, as I can't locate any discussion about it. I'll ask about it on the RFArb talk page in a little bit, after I do some sleuthing. Frankly, I think it's an inadvertant error, because it raises the bar against accepting cases – in my opinion – far too high. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed the policy, changed recently as I understand it. I am running off (RL calls) but I'll send you a link later to some discussion on the subject, in which I agreed with you. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a little more detail at the RFArb talk page. I'm having trouble locating any on-wiki discussion of the change in any of the places where one might expect to find it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User:Irate

Using User:84.9.192.124 Disruptive editing, offensive comments and refusal to discuss on talk pages. MRSC • Talk 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please block this IP? He continues to make edits. MRSC • Talk 09:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that Irate has rotating IPs?? --SunStar Net^talk 13:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please block him, he will not respond to discussion but continues to make edits. MRSC • Talk 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:84.9.192.124 has now been blocked. However, he is now evading his ban using User:87.75.130.177. Can someone please block User:87.75.130.177. Thanks. 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Puppy Mill as sockpuppet

This user seems a sockpuppet of Daniel Brandt, or at least a user acting very similarly. He asked me a string of candidate questions for arbcom at [122] that obviously refer to Brandt, his first article edit (after making his userpage) was to Daniel Brandt, and his vote against Cynical's RFA is based on similar concerns to Brandt's: [123]. Furthermore, his questions to Will Bebeck at [124] reflect other concerns recognizable from Wikipedia Review.

Seems very clearly either Brandt or some other banned and disruptive user using the account to quietly push the agenda they got banned for pushing aggressively before.

My inclination is to block indefinitely (and in fact that's what I did, then backed off and decided to be more cautious) - any thoughts here? Phil Sandifer 16:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has a few good contributions on unrelated material. I would issue them a strong message about not pushing such issues and not asking obviously loaded questions to ArbCom candidates. Also, suggest running a checkuser to see if its Brandt. JoshuaZ 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the questions in and of themselves - I intend to answer them. They're valid questions. But the overall pattern of behavior looks like Brandt or another WR poster making an account that won't be an obvious sockpuppet. It is, if you'll pardon the term, an obvious non-obvious sockpuppet. Phil Sandifer 18:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't block people for affiliations with external websites. We don't block someone for being at ED or WR, I hope. If this is a sockpuppet of an actually indefinitely banned user, we have to find that out by CheckUser. There is no blocking for pursuing the causes of an external website. Heck, if we did that we'd be blocking people for seeming to be like people who seem to be like people who claim to be GNAA. Geogre 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All true, none of it what I was asking. The account looks at every level to be a sockpuppet - showed up, immediately hit Brandt, quickly began edits in line with an existing crusade, is serving as a mouthpiece for banned users. It screams sockpuppet, and CheckUser has always been treated as a nice bonus in these cases, but not necessary. Phil Sandifer 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block under the circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:GiorgioOrsini

This user constantly keeps removing content from various article, the most obvious at List of Croatians but he has recently started the same on Francesco Patrizi, Andrea Meldolla, Giovanni Luppis and Benedetto Cotrugli. He keeps edit-warring and removing certain references that don't suit him and as can be seen on his history page this is the only thing he did and does on Wikipedia [125] The User:Giovanni Giove seems to be working with him, he is maybe even one sockpuppet of the other but nevertheless they seem to be working together in this edit-war and removal of certain references and imposing their POV version. As can be seen on his history as well [126]. Please can someone do something? --Factanista 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The matter appears to be temporarily resolved. GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Nishkid64 for 31 h. Sandstein 22:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

All right, this is enough. Let's not create more open wounds the day before the ArbCom elections start. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions to ArbCom members

There seems to be a little bit of a quarrel that may be bubbling over, so I'm bringing it here in the hopes of getting more outside views.

Earlier today I asked a question of all ArbCom candidates (this is not unusual; many others have asked the same question of all candidates). My question was concerning whether the candidates would be voting on or commenting on other candidates. I think this was a reasonable concern, as it could get really ugly if two ArbCom candidates got into a large argument during the election and then they both ended up sitting on the committee together. But that is neither here nor there.

Another user objected to my view and thinks that ArbCom candidates should vote and comment on other candidates. That's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint to have. But I was not happy when he posted his response to my question on all 37 ArbCom candidate question pages where I asked the question. I wasn't asking the question of him, I was asking the question of the candidates. Also, threaded discussion is discouraged on these question and answer pages because it leads things to degenerate into arguments and creates a much larger volume of text for potential voters to have to wade through. It should be a simple question and answer format. So I went through and removed the other user's response to my question.

He is free to ask his own questions, of course, even on this same topic if he wishes, but I do not think the threaded discussion and commenting on my questions is appropriate. So, what should be done if these kind of situations pop up in the future? Should we maybe have some sort of neutral third-party watching over these question/answer pages making sure that they stick to the format and that candidates always get the first shot at answering questions, not someone else? Thanks. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, don't you think you're overreacting? Looking for problems where there are none, at least not yet?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I got a warning on my talk page that someone was going to "file a report" about me if I didn't reinstate the non-candidate responses to my questions, and since I have no intentions of reinstating the non-candidate responses to my questions, I figure I might as well pre-emptively bring it here and save the other guy the trouble of having to "file a report". --Cyde Weys 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just remember, this is going on your permanent record. Georgewilliamherbert 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, so how about some specific diffs then?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• See below section. - Mailer Diablo 23:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde Weys interfering with questions in ArbCom election

user:Cyde Weys has deleted comments on 37 pages. I am hoping an administrator can convince him to undo his deletions. #user:Cyde Weys posted a request not to vote on the question pages of the 37 ArbCom candidates. Example: [127] #While he had the right to do so, I asked that he consider bringing the discussion to the elections talk page instead, which he declined [128] [129] #User:Mailer Diablo added a request to vote on the 37 question pages. Example: [130] #I thanked user:Mailer Diablo. [131] #user:Cyde Weys deleted user:Mailer Diablo's comment, 37 times. Example: [132] #I asked user:Cyde Weys to revert the deletion, and offered that I was not certain what WP had been violated, but I was quite certain one had been. [133] #user:Cyde Weys declined to revert his deletions. [134]

I've never posted here before. I hope I have supplied enough information for you to figure out what, if anything, needs to be done. Thank you. Jd2718 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like what happened, but I had no intention of prying open a hornets' nest. Is there any way to just leave this alone? My regrets are at User_talk:Jd2718#Apology.

I'm sorry if my initial question was unclear, but I later went back through and revised it to make it obvious that I was asking the candidates' opinions on voting and commenting on other candidates. I was asking my question of the candidates, not of Mailer Diablo, and so I removed his response to my questions. If he would like to ask the candidates questions under his own section heading, he can of course do that, but I was not particularly looking for his (or any non-candidates') response when I posted my question. --Cyde Weys 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this. But I think there is broader question here (and since I'm a candidate, I won't try to answer it). Are the 'candidate question pages' simply for questions and the candidate's reply (perhaps followed up with a supplementary question)? Or, are threaded discussions with perhaps multiple parties commenting, also valuable. As candidates, we must bow to the consensus here, but it might be worth the uninvolved expressing a view.--Doc^g 23:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Idealy question pages should be for questions and answers only. Third parties shouldn't really be commenting. While Cyde's question could be viewed as somewhat loaded he was free to ask it and it should be left to the candidates to answer or not answer as they will.Geni 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde's question is inherently divisive because it appears to encourages candidates to act rather than answering with a return statement. It is no different from the admin recall controvsery some time ago, whereby the question of "There's an admin recall category, admins in good standing have signed up, what do you think" have been inserted in all Requests for Adminship applications, in which indirectly "peer pressures" candidates into signing up. In this case, it appears that the question, intentionally or unintentionally, is encouraging candidates not to cast their votes, and we never had this form of precedence. I was merely gently reminding candidates about the acutal potential cause of conflict amongst candidates, and I was reverted over on 37 pages. - Mailer Diablo 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You were also potentially biasing the responses to my questions. Arbitrators have to know how to deal with all sorts of situations that come up, including situations such as the "admin recall controversy" where a user states his own view before asking if another shares it. --Cyde Weys 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, I'll copy and paste the addeum in full : "Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards" - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in good-faith third-party input. In fact I've gotten quite a bit of it on my own page. This has nothing to do with whether or not the original question is "divisive". —freak(talk) 00:00, Dec. 3, 2006 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate there is a debate here, and it's even more unfortunate that it's crossed over here. Why is it on here anyway? I see no way how an administrator is supposed to intervene on this one. Seek Wikipedia:Dispute resolution rather than piling on uninvolved parties. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Mailer Diablo's action was wise - afterall, Cyde was entitled to ask a question and the responses should have come from the candidates. But, wise or not, I think it was open to Mailer Diablo to suggest a response in the civil and thoughtful way that he did. I can't see any policy breach. For Cyde to revert out the comment 37 times doesn't seem very collegial. Remember, Mailer Diablo is a respected editor and admin, not a vandal or troll. Metamagician3000 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Gosh and here I was politely respecting the fact that questions were being asked of the candidates, not me. Does this me its open season on the candidate question pages now? Because there are some I'd love to comment on and I'm sure I'm not the only person. pschemp | talk 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the reason that other editors don't comment on the candidate question page is specifically because of situations like this. Its not helpful to the process if disputes are started over questions/responses. Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The question is whether it is a good faith question or a question with ulterior motives. I had assumed that it was merely left field. Then a new candidate appeared just at the last second who has had a tremendous amount of bad blood surrounding, and, in particular, has had very bad dealings with several of the candidates. Intent is not something anyone can weigh, but it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict that the elections are about to get unpleasant, when they had been quite placid before. Why the dog wants to get into the manger is not for me to guess. Geogre 01:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think the deletions should be now be undone or that other editors commenting on candidate question pages should be encouraged. I just think that there were more collegial and respectful ways this could have been handled. Metamagician3000 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for help - 2 users suspected to be same person.

I have looked under WP:RFCU and not sure this fits. I have been doing RCP for a little while tonight and have noticed 2 page creations, both of which have now been deleted, and 2 user accounts. The users I suspect may be the same person, since the edits were done in a very similar manner, same naming style (First name had initial capital, last name in all small) and the pages were very short, almost equal in style and grammatical layout. The users were User:Jags1992 and User:CrueN'Roses - could I please ask for my own peace of mind that these are checked just inc ase I have stumbled on something. The 2 edits were: Rishi nahar and Keith daley. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have further questions. Thor Malmjursson 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Malmjurssen. Just wanted to let you know that I checked to see if they're the same contributers. And after a preliminary investigation, I cant say that I've concluded anything of any investigative substance. Rest assured, that I will work NIGHT AND DAY! Heck, even on Christmas (NOT "the holidays") to find out if indeed this matter is feasable. In summary, I will analyze his contributions letter by letterand report back with my findings.DranoDrinker 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User created account today, this was the second edit. Anyone else smell a rat? Viridae^Talk 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I created this account today, but I was told that my last username was inappropriate.Sorry about the confusion.DranoDrinker 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that sorts that out. Sorry I was oversly suspicious. Viridae^Talk 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats okay, no offense taken. I've made more embarrassing assumptions. Such as telling now defunct User:I Hate Drano Drinker that he was a jackass because I thought he was getting personal with me. Turns out, he had good reason to be angry. Apparantly he had some rare can of Drano from the 60's that he was going to sell on Ebay for a TON of money. Well, long story short, his roommate got drunk one night and chugged it. Now he has to continue working as restroom attendant at the Broken Biker Boozehouse.

DranoDrinker 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

While they are probably the same person (hard to tell as neither has any non-deleted edits), if that person isn't abusing having two accounts, they are allowed to have them. (See WP:SOCK) If both accounts start voting in AfDs or something, then it might be worth doing something, but at the moment, I'd just let it be. --Tango 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Review contribs pls

Can someone review this vandals contribs: Special:Contributions/Robertismyfather. I'm not sure that all of them are rubbish, but I suspect so. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Has been dealt with. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Irascible curmudgeon

Some dude by the name of User:Wavy G is dominating the Fred G. Sanford article. I looked on the article and I saw the phrase "irascible curmudgeon" there, and replaced it with the more simple, rational, "irritable" on the article. He has dominated the article and continues to dispute and remove changes to the article. Any help?

That looks like a content dispute more than something an admin is going to help you with. Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is your opinion?

You don't want to know my opinion. Danny Lilithborne 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is don't edit war over two words. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I know, you think it is a stupid argument - but come on "irascible curmudgeon." What the hell? It is a bad way to word the article, which is already redundant in describing Sanford's characteristics.

Okay. Good. Now please go discuss that on the article talk page? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please. Edit warring over "irascible curmudgeon" and "irritable person" is about the lamest thing possible. Get back to writing an encyclopedia instead of arguing over semantics. And, like what Amarkov said, argue on the talk page, not here. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I quit, WIkipedia sucks, especially if it is full of editors that put words like that in articles - I curse this project to hell

I'm sorry, but if you're going to quit because another editor disagrees with you on one word... I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why am I imagining one or both parties in the dispute clutching his chest and shouting, "I'm coming, Elizabeth, it's the big one?" (Besides, Aunt Esther would make anyone irritable.) Geogre 13:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:70.17.222.7

This editor was been repeatedly blanking the warnings I give for vandalism. Wondering If we could block him. Thanks!--JForget 03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it's rather contentuous whether or not removing talk page warnings constitutes vandalism. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings on a users talk page can be blanked by the user (I believe thats the current policy). THis does not mean that the warning has not been issued. It is, after all, in the history 8-)--Light current 03:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I never understood why the removal of warnings has been contentious. Yes, the warnings are still in the history, but no vandal-fighter is going to look in the history before issuing a warning. If vandal-fighters keep adding {{test2}} warnings, only to have them removed by the warned user, the user would never get blocked and continue vandalizing. Having warnings easily visible is beneficial to vandal-fighters and administrators, and so I believe the removal of warnings ought to be disallowed, unless the warning(s) in question is/are patently ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just checked the contribs of this user, and seeing another instance of vandalism, I gave him a {{bv}} not knowing that he had already been issued a t4 prior.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with anyway. Viridae^Talk 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Block Evading

• CallMeCrazy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is VaughanWatch (talk · contribs) evading his indef block (again). The users' only edit was to blank the VW Long Term abuse page with the edit summary "archiving". Indef block is in order. (This puts him at like 60 socks now). -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• He's also blanking the talk page of another one of VW's socks, I've been reverting it, but I'm at 3RR, so help would be appreciated... -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. By the way, if you're reverting vandalism, the three-revert rule does not apply. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since you blocked CallMeCrazy, he created Natamorte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that's 61. Good to know about 3rr. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I blocked that one too (is no one else on ANI?), semi-protected the Long Term Abuse page from editing, and fully-protected the page from moves. -- tariqabjotu 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment and Stalking by young user.

I recently registered a username at Wikipedia, although I edited anonymously for months before. In my first few edits, User:WarthogDemon seems to have taken an interest in harrassing me, stalking my edits, and talking badly about me to other users. He has engaged in a campaign of whining and cross-posting on talk pages in an effort to besmirch me and anger me. Mr Bullockx 04:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of evidence, this seems to be an unjustified claim, and some kind of edit/retaliation war. Starting with a deletion [135] - resulting in an very questionable AfD [136] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doll Graveyard --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I see more of a troll here. He put Fleshlight up for WP:FAC.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

... which FAC nomination I have now speedied on Ryulong's request as G3. Sandstein 07:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Scientology sock?

User:Highfructosecornsyrup appears from his/her contributions page to be a relatively new user. And yet s/he jumped rapidly into controversial articles about Scientology and began editing in a disruptive and rude manner, covering articles with spurious tags and provoking fights with other editors. I suspect this person to be a sock puppet or "hatted" (officially assigned) meat puppet of banned editors User:AI or User:Terryeo. --FOo 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no basis for these paranoid accusations, and I only began earnestly editing Scientology articles this very evening. For the most part I haven't even been editing per se, I've just been pointing out some POV/sourcing problems and trying to open it up for consensus on the talk pages. I don't think my use of tags was "spurious" and am happy to discuss the matter with impartial editors. I've been explaining my edits on every talk page, which is more than I can say for the editors who automatically revert without using the talk page. Finally, the claim of "provoking fights with other editors" is a just-plain lie, no other way to say it. This whole Scientology thing tonight has been quite bizarre. I've been on the receiving end of the fight-provoking, not the inciting end, and I can prove it with diffs if anyone really wants to drag this into a big debacle. I'd prefer to work on improving the articles, however. Highfructosecornsyrup 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he can spell, so it's not Terryeo. yandman 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, freaky this is like deja-vu. This is an extract from an email I sent maybe 6 hours ago;

Are you thinking Terryeo, or AI? (or god forbid another..)

I dunno, he's agressive, obviously made about 100 or so non Scieo edits first - and is DEFINITELY a sock of someone:

He created an article immediately, used correct categories, sections, external linking, wikicode, stubbed and used an edit summary (big teller) and then signed correctly on his first ever talk page edit.

At best he edited as an anon first, but then why stay away from Co$ articles until registering?

And since, nommed articles for like Stacy Brooks for AfD (which I think Ive saved), labelled copyvios and is quoting WP:RS back at us...

There's also User:UNK/User:JimmyT as other sock possibilities (who I actually think were User:AI/User:Nikitchenko anyway). So, Bets anyone?? ;)  Glen  11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When you friendly people get done speculating and insulting, I'd like to get back to discussing the bias problems with the articles. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, right after you come clean re your prior activity here I guess huh?  Glen  16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What gives you the right to make such accusations? Highfructosecornsyrup 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

C'mon. Are you honestly asserting that before the creation of that user account barely ten days ago; that 20 minutes after creation, you created Fenster School (which you made in one edit). And that article was laid out perfectly, used the correct stub tag, categorized perfectly, and even used the edit summary... 20 minutes after creation... if you are saying, that was your first edit here, If thats your story, then. cool.  Glen  16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that you're surprised that I am not a moron. I've been following Wikipedia closely for two years now. I knew what edit summaries, sandbox, Wiki-markup, stub tags, categories, AfDs, etc. were over a year ago. Maybe you've become so burned out by the neverending barrage of kids who start editing Wikipedia ten seconds after they discover it, that you've forgotten that some people study it for years before seeing a need to jump in. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, thats exactly what I'd thought you'd say. So, you studied wikipedia, wikipedia is interative so you are saying you have edited it before. Fine. You're also very knowledgeable about Scientology. You picked a copyright violation out straight away, and know the subject, well, like you have studied it for two years. Thats fine, so have I. But, what I dont believe, and nor do many others; is that you've been here, studying wikipedia for two years (your words) - with a clear point of view when it comes to subjects, like scientology. And, with all the unbsourced, bias artcles you seem to think we have = over that 2 year study period, you never tried to add a source, fix some POV, vote for something, for 2 years. Then you create an account one day, and all hell breaks lose. Thats what happened?  Glen  17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology isn't my raison d'etre here. Schools are. Highfructosecornsyrup 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that everybody who sees the set of articles on Scientology as having exaggerated focus on controversy and criticisc, or as poorly sourced is accused of being a sockpuppet. This includes user:Fossa who also complained about poorly sourced criticism of Scientology. I have not a reputation of being lenient against cults and NRMs but I support User:Highfructosecornsyrup requests for sources and for reducing the sometimes extremely prominent space of controversy and criticisms such as in the template:Scientology. 17:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Block review request

Was I wrong indefblocking IP of blocked user:Will314159 block log who was evading the block? I thought I am doing the right thing, but it seems Centrx doesn't think so so I decided to ask the community. On the second thought, the duration of Will314159's block probably should have been extended for his evasion. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless it is an open proxy, I would just extend Will314159's block and then block the ip to match. Viridae^Talk 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be an open proxy...I'd just block it for the same amount of time Will is blocked. I would also reset the original block instead of extending it. Khoikhoi 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx insists that this is a dynamic IP, so I have unblocked it in the spirit of good faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, its dynamic in the sense that it appears to be a cable modem, and the user could force it to reset if he knows how. Thatcher131 12:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For most IP vandals, a 3 month block is effectively an indefinite block, and IP's do get reassigned. If the vandal's parents ever send junior off to military academy, or if the angry poster decides to get rehab, or if the lonely vandal finds a significant other and mellows out, or if the power company turns off the juice to the cable modem (speaking in general terms, here, and not this particular one), then the IP may attempt to do some good. Big blocks are indefinite blocks, unless we're dealing with some of our professional vandals. Geogre 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock report

If you look at [[137]] you will see that User: 74.225.215.248 and User: 65.33.193.105 are making the same unverified claims as if they are true and obvious. Having looked through the talk history too I noticed several IP addresses that seem to be one in purpose with this user. Although my IP address shows up there too when I forgot to sign in, the difference is that I went back and signed my user name next to it. I know that it is not neccessary to sign in or register, but this user has utilized multiple IP address with the apparent intent of sockpuppetry, I know that he has been chastised at each IP for misconduct, is engaged at what can only be called vandalism at the aforementioned article, and has even signed his name (on the Strata talk page) so as to not show his IP address but rather redirect to the Wikipedia article "Blah." This seems wrong to me. I would like him to stick to either one username, or one IP unless he has a good reason otherwise because its deceptive. I think he edits under multiple IPs to give the impression that his content is acceptable to multiple people rather than the lies it is. Furthermore, I want his lies out of the article I was working on. Thanks Green hornet 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected. I hope this is sufficient. If, in the future, it appears that the user is using multiple IPs to avoid 3RR, and the problem is ongoing, you can have the page protected again. 18:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-consensus page moves

Administrator intervention is requested to stop a few users who are engaging in non-consensus page moves of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of television episode articles. There has been a dispute at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) for a few weeks now. The page is marked as disputed[138], attempts at discussion have been ongoing [139][140][141][142], and the issue is now moving on to mediation. However, a few users, evidently frustrated with the slowness of the process, are declaring premature "consensus" and engaging in large quantities of page moves [143][144][145][146][147][148] [149]. I understand that anything that is moved can eventually be moved back, but we're talking a couple thousand pages here, plus redirects, plus many of these pages are at names which have already been the result of elaborate consensus-building discussions by various WikiProjects, so I think it would be better if we had a complete freeze on these kinds of naming changes for now. The situation has been exacerbated by extreme uncivility and uncooperative behavior: "respond to this crap" [150][151], "bad faith delay tactics" [152] "proposing a poll is uncivil and disruptive" [153][154]. Can I please get a neutral admin to pop in to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and simply say, "Stop with the moves, take it to WP:DR, don't move anything else until it's been worked out"? --Elonka 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Several admins have commented on the situation, but each time Elonka has deemed them "non neutral" because they disagreed with her. -- Ned Scott 09:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the poll were re-run and found in Elonka's favor, it would still require exceptions to be established at various places - either a Wikiproject or at an individual page. In fact, it would just require WP:RM to be run for pages which don't meet the current guideline - which is already advisable. The page moves would still be appropriate for ones that have not established exceptions - which is most all of them. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As a note, both Ned Scott and Wknight94 are active parties in this dispute, so don't really count as neutral opinions.

For a recent example of how this group of editors is steamrollering through various sections of Wikipedia, I point to Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987) episodes#Disambiguation, where an earlier naming convention has been attacked, with multiple controversial page moves being pushed through without discussion. The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006[155]. Then, a couple days ago, as overflow from the dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), an editor from the dispute, in a violation of WP:POINT, jumped in to the TMNT category and started moving articles around, giving only about 24 hours notice that they were going to start [156], and then when no objections immediately surfaced, they proceeded. When the situation was noticed and objections were raised, the talk page has turned into a battleground, as other editors from the NC discussion have poured in. And the pages can't be moved back, because they're editing the redirects to "lock" them[157]. Please, this group of editors is working its way through multiple sections of Wikipedia, making a kangaroo court consensus, and moving many hundreds of articles. We need for these moves to stop, so that normal WP:DR procedures can be followed. --Elonka 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And again we have all tried to explain to Elonka that there is no problem. There was no previous consensus, just some guy went and named a bunch of articles that were a little out of line with WP:NC-TV. No big deal. We moved them, there are redirects all in place, no double redirects, and no rational reason whatsoever to use an article titling method that doesn't fit with WP:NC-TV and WP:D. In all honestly, the only issue here is the users who are making it an issue. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's sentence, The "normal" TMNT editors had earlier this year already gone through several iterations of article naming, finally deciding on a consistent system in February 2006 boils down to one editor who misplaced one note stating his sole preference. No evidence of either "TMNT editors" or "several iterations" has been given by Elonka. Just one guy with one iteration all by himself 9 months ago. This is the type of misrepresentation we've been dealing with for a month at WP:NC-TV. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka is asking for someone to say "take it to WP:DR" — however, dispute resolution is underway. An RfM has been filed, but is currently stalled after the RfM page itself was locked because of an edit war largely perpetrated by Elonka. (Incidentally, I believe that the RfM dispute is settled, and if a neutral party would like to unprotect the RfM page it would be greatly appreciated — the admins hoping to participate in the mediation have been asked not to unlock the page ourselves.)

What Elonka calls a "kangaroo court consensus" is the result of extensive discussion at WT:TV-NC. Elonka feels that due to some irregularities in an earlier straw poll, no consensus has been reached on the guideline; she is calling for a second poll. However, subsequent to that poll a supermajority of participating editors expressed support for the existing guideline, and the discussion following the poll showed a strong supermajority supporting the principle "disambiguate only when necessary". Most editors on the page consider this a consensus, but Elonka vocally disputes this.

Incidentally, at least five admins have examined and/or participated in the discussion at WT:TV-NC, and all five have agreed that a consensus exists for the current guideline. For the record these five admins are myself, Chuq[158], Steve Block[159], Radiant![160] and wknight94[161](along with many other comments on the subject). Any other participation in the discussion is, of course, welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sfacets, Sahajhist, ownership issues

FYI, Sfacets (talk · contribs) and (minorly) Sahajhist (talk · contribs) have been exerting strong ownership over the articles connected to their acknowleged guru, Nirmala Srivastava and the associated movement, Sahaja Yoga. The ownership has been expressed by repeatedly deleting legitimate sources and criticisms on flimsy excuses while inserting barely-sourced positive information. Sfacets has also been involved in including derogatory information about competing gurus and opponents. When asked pointed questions about his editing and uploads Sfacets suddenly (but unevenly) became too busy to reply. Sfacets appears to be involved in gross POV pushing, fraudulent image copyright tags, and tendentious editing. When he returns to active editing I will seek further dispute resolution steps (e.g. mediation). These intra-guru battles should be handled with utmost neutrality. -Will Beback · † · 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion and I can understand your frustration. The formal insistence by user:Sfacets and user:Sahajhist on (near-)impeccable sources for criticisms strikes me as a bit unfair and not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. I tried to find (and to some extent have found) reputable sources for criticism. Andries 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We all appreciate the need for high standards according to BLP and the encyclopedia project. These standards should be applied consistently, not bent forward and backwards according to the topic. The editor in question has been making high demands on critical sources for his own guru while restoring unsourced defamation about other gurus. [162][163]. -Will Beback · † · 10:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have always been open to discussion regarding these sources, and have provided reasons backed by Wikipedia policy why some of the sources are not suitable. The dialogue, sadly, is mostly one-sided.

I also requested a RFC on one of the sources[164], to which other editors concurred with my view that the source in question was unreliable.

Each of the sources have been scrutinized, studied and discussed by the editors involved, and argument have been provided why to keep or discard these ources[165]

I am in no way asserting ownership, and if I am concentrating more heavily on this article at the moment it is because many sources/external links which failed the WP:RL and WP:EL policies were being added, and because, being an "acknowledged" follower of the movement believe that I can add to information missing from the article. I have in fact been working on a large section on beliefs, which User:WillbeBack has commented on it's incompleteness.[166]

In response to "restoring unsourced defamation about other gurus" if I may direct you to the examples in question you will notice that one of them was reverted because it was uncommented, and the other because it had just been added, and needed time for editors to find sources to prove it, before removing it. I edit many articles, and never to push my POV.

I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and one of my favorite guidelines is "Assume good faith". I have been (and still am) busy in real life, and can only ask that User:WillbeBack understand that this is the reason I have been unable to answer his enquiries on the images he refers to above. Yes, 2 of them have incorrect copyright info, I will fix this when I have time (feel free to remove them until such a time, if you feel the necessity)

Peace out, Sfacets 11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:RFC and other means of dispute resolution. The administrator noticeboard is not Wikipedia's complaint department. Only bring up things that need urgent attention. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

One day Wikipedia is going to have to deal with the issue of how to positively use the contributions of editors who actually have some real-life knowledge on the entries they contribute to. I use the same user name here as I do on yahoo, lulu and blogspot - so you can check me out - and even buy my books. :)- Sahajhist 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pisgat Ze'ev

Can anyone review the conduct there? I think ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs) in paricular deserves a blocks, since s/he's the one repeatedly upsetting the status quo. Thank you. - crz crztalk 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add that he has been reverting 5 separate editors on this article since June 2, 2006, rejecting an earlier consensus, but has yet to make even one comment on the article Talk: page. The account itself edits fairly intermittently, and seems to be editing this month mostly for the purpose of reverting that article. I'd support a block of anywhere between 1 week and 1 month, but I leave the exact length up to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As the editor being discussed here, I'd just like to say that I represent that remark that "the account ... seems to be editing this month mostly for the purpose of reverting that article". I direct your attention to my list of edits in November, the last full month; you can decide for yourself whether I devoted most of my attention to reverting Pisgat Ze'ev or not. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Consistently with my Self-imposed Block Probation, I am imposing a five day block on ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs) for s/his conduct on Pisgat Ze'ev. Please direct further communication to my talk page. - crz crztalk 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

From an admittedly brief look over this, it does look like a block could be justified. Am I the only one thinking five days might be a bit strong? If a shorter block is enough to "get the message across" and change their behavior, leading to dispute resolution and more reasonable behavior, good; if not, it would seem easy enough to re-block. Any takers? Luna Santin 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking 72 hours... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think 5 days is fine. Jayjg suggested up to a month. Feel free to shorten it w/o discussion if you feel it's warranted. - crz crztalk 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree 5 days is entirely appropriate. If anything its lenient. This user has been edit warring over months, repeatedly reverting back to his same WP:POV edit without any attempt to reach a consensus on the talk page. If this had happened on a couple of occasions, then a 5 day block would be too much, but a sustained, long-term edit war is a serious matter and we need to send a strong message. This is unacceptable behavior that seriously damages the fundamental processes of Wikipedia. I have already declined the user's unblock request. Gwernol 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let this one sit, unless fresh opinions or evidence come up to the contrary. Luna Santin 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Gibraltarians

The article has gone thru 2 Afds so far. Although i am not accusing Mackensen of acting in bad faith when closing the 2nd Afd, i am just questionning here the validity of the argument presented as a summary of the closure. Presenting the article for the deletion review once more would be viewed as a WP:POINT or as if i am acting in bad faith. Is there someone who can review this and comment about it? Cheers -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the place you are looking for is deletion review. Sandstein 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

... or if you just disagree with the closing comment, not with the AfD outcome, you could discuss it with the closing admin on their talk page. I'm not sure what you expect us to do here. Sandstein 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Bowser Koopa

A few things look odd at this category, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bowser Koopa. I really feel like the creators of the category are, in fact, sockpuppets of Bowser Koopa (talk · contribs). The Showster (talk · contribs) and You're The Man Now Dog (talk · contribs) were both registered 6 minutes apart, within 10 minutes of the registration of Bowser, King of the Koopas (talk · contribs) a Bowser Koopa sockpuppet. Anyone else seeing this? Metros232 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about those two users being socks of Bowser Koopa (though the way it was written makes it seem likely), but that category had to go. -- Steel 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

user mass-replacing various image deletion tags with "promophoto"

Pixel ;-) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Incidentally, do we allow emoticons in usernames? — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't. It's not insulting or obscene. º¡º got away with it, too. --Kizor 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has asserted that he/she is doing this because the deletion tags = WP:CREEP. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Plese don't distort what i said.Ther's a huge difference betwen what i said and what you read.

• {{AutoReplaceable fair use}}=WP:CREEP
• --Pixel ;-) 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't it just allows our uploaders to automaticly identify those cases which are likely not to be good fair use cases. No extra instructions are added.Geni 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is by definition WP:CREEP.If it's not what is then.i'm not posting here any more.buy buy.--87.65.190.178 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24 hours for blindly making WP:POINT violations. I picked four of the images at random and none of them had source info before the autoreplaceable fair use tag was removed, which means they're still fair game for deletion anyway. Kimchi.sg 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he just posted to my talk page as 87.65.226.171 (talk · contribs). — CharlotteWebb 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously him. He also posted to whatshisname's page using IP 87.65.153.140 (talk · contribs). I looked back through his image edits and it appears he may have been trolling from day one, replacing free photos with copyrighted ones, using some sorry rationales like "he's too old in the other photo" or "this is a photo of him accepting the nobel prize, NOT REPLACEABLE", etc. etc. see for yourself, I reverted a lot of his edits. — CharlotteWebb 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me how I know this, but he won't be coming back from the 24-hour block. — CharlotteWebb 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He won't be coming back, period. The user's password was pasted on the userpage, and as per poilcy on open accounts, the account has been blocked indef. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SAAB forum question

hello,

we recently bought a new saab 9-2x aero and joined an excellent users forum: http://saab92x.com/ while doing a search on wikipedia for our car, i noticed that our forum wasn't listed as an external link, and edited the links to add our forum.

i posted my actions to our forum, and i was informed that two previous external listings to our excellent forum have been deliberately removed. i am bringing this to your attention as removal of valid links is clearly not consistent with stated wikipedia's policies.

please advise,

mark.a.solomon <emailremoved>

Wikipedia is not for advertising your forum - see WP:SPAM -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More generally please read the guidelines for external links. Thatcher131 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Evading Indef Block, Again

• ThornhilllWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sockpuppet of VaughanWatch (making it something like 62 now... Besides the obviously username vio, his edits are again consistent with VW's earlier patterns, especially this. An indef block would be appreciated. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• While I can't speak to if this is Vaughan or not (I don't remember encountering him), the user does seem to fit the pattern of indef'ed sockpuppet returned under another name: immediately jumping into articles with proper tagging, proper use of terminology, and edgy combativeness. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• And then there's this. No, I take it back, I have encountered him before, and it looks like Vaughan to me. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on WP:V

There is a dispute on WP:V, over the difference between these two versions. In particular, the debate appears to be about exactly how many "content policies" Wikipedia has, and whether it's important to cite this number on WP:V. If I understand correctly, one party asserts that there are exactly three content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) and that this number must be listed, and the other party asserts that there are several more content policies (such as WP:NOT and WP:GFDL) and that the number '3' is either incorrect or irrelevant. Some other people, such as myself, fail to see why this is such a big deal either way, but since WP:V is an important page it would be nice if some outsiders chimed in, on the talk page. (Radiant) 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen King being vandalized by IPs

Could we please get Stephen King semi-protected? It keeps getting vandalized by random IP addresses. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Finlay McWalter took care of the IP being used, and the article is back to normal. I dont think semi-protection is needed anymore. Thanks anyway, though! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave a note at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection the next time you want a page protected. Cheers - Aksi_great (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of banned books

List of banned books has been vandalized by 24.19.206.161 3 times after warnings. I think he deserves at least a small block. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take this request to WP:AIV. That is where you notify administrators of vandalism, not here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't reported a vandal in a while. Done. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Chempep's inappropriate username

Chempep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s username is inappropriate because every edit he makes will insert linkspam for http://www.chempep.com into the edit history of pages. My report concerning this user on WP:AIV was removed with an explanation of "Husond has handled" -- however, while User:Chempep might not engage in further creation of spam pages, there's no reason to allow him to employ his username for the purpose of linkspam. John254 20:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what there is to do, beyond what is done:

• He's been reverted.
• If he repeats his spamming, he'll be reverted and blocked.
• The existence of his talk page affords so little spam benefit that we needn't worry about it. And a bit of deleted spam isn't a good enough reason to delete a user talk page.
• We're not going to take up a bureaucrat's scarce time changing the username of a user with three surviving edits.

Ironically you've aided his spam campaign by repeating his username on this page several times, together with the link to the site - there's no link to the site anywhere else on Wikipedia, I think. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Users with inappropriate usernames are normally blocked indefinitely. If we don't block him, then any further edits will insert linkspam into the histories of the articles he edits. We can't then decide to change his username, because an involuntary username change violates the GFDL by not attributing his edits. I'm well aware of the irony of this post affording this user further publicity; however, the posting on WP:ANI wouldn't have been necessary if this user had been indefinitely blocked for having an inappropriate username when he was first reported on WP:AIV. I see no reason not to enforce Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames against this user. John254 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the indefinite blocking of users with inappropriate usernames is a standard practice, described in Template:UsernameBlocked. John254 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandal text appears on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_%28file_format%29 (it references HABBO's genitalia) - but I cannot see the text in the edit blocks (the vandalism is in block 2 or block 3 - but editing these does not reveal the text). 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)~

Already gone. Viridae^Talk 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (second nomination)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (second nomination)

I've reverted a non-admin close of this debate, but since there has been some rough-housing on this IP's talk regarding my non-admin closing of debates, I thought it wise to place a notice here. - 152.91.9.144 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, boldness over the fact that an administrator is never explicitly stated as necessary to close a non-delete AfD (as far as I know) has gone far. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it was closed a day early. It wasn't really suitable for a speedy keep, and only admins should close early anyway (says so on Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions), so you were right to reopen it - thanks. --Tango 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't entirely disagree with reverting the close, but a) 152 participated in this discussion, and the close was against him, and b) re-opening would have been sufficient; there was no good reason to relist it on today's AfD page here. Opabinia regalis 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it didn't need to be relisted. Presumably, it was still on transcluded on the correct day's page (if it wasn't it was a very bad close). --Tango 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, reverting the close was proper, but it shouldn't be used to extend the debate past normal limits. Doc Tropics 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Opabinia is correct, I should have noted the perceived conflict of interest in the re-open. I'm not clear on the harm done by relisting, however, as debates tend to go "stale" pretty quickly at AfD and additional information had been presented. - 152.91.9.144 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the close was not proper. There is no rule that non-admins may not close obvious keeps, which this was. This is a case of sour grapes on 152's part. He did not like the way the AFD turned out. The close was good, it was proper, plenty of time was given and it had already been through a DRV that decided to undelete. In fact, he only voted on the AFD to begin with not minutes after a user with a message about it gave him a warning about moving sections on this noticeboard. The bad faith is blatant here. pschemp | talk 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've closed this again. It probably shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin (things like unanimous keeps or speedy deletes can be), but that doesn't matter now. It's been open long enough, and after being on DRV has had plenty of time to attract attention, so there's nothing to be gained by putting it back on AfD for five more days. --bainer (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling (and personal hatred?) by Tankred (talk · contribs)

[167] The first one was also trolling, since I stated on my userpage well before [168], that I do not log in usually [, or in other words I'm using IPs. If someone would take the time, he/she would find out eithout a checkuser, that they are me, and Slovan is my roommate. I also confirmed them. After it, Tankred made a case of sock puppeting. 5 or 6 times did I explain this, but he alwas wrote the same, at here, I fed up, and I called him a Troll with a bit angry comment after [169].

I do not know any wikipedia policies, wich says signing in is a must, or a policy wich states "only one person/PC". Otherwise, I did not broke any lines of WP:SOCK, but got blocked :) Maybe you should read that policy again, since it was misused in my case. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting it. His complaint isn't that you don't log in all the time, his complaint is that you say something using an IP, and then support it with your logged-in account, which is indeed giving an impression of greater support than there actually is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

-edit conflict- To be clear again, I was supporting myself always :-) My internet provider DOES NOT give a fix IP to its users, and I never denied that they are belonging to me. Simply: I was not asked, since he never assumed good faith. Never. You know, WP:FAITH would be enough. Just a question before this. If I deny it is right, but I DID NOT DENIED IT no, never! This is why I also took the case as a personal attack. Because it is. Not an easy to realize for outsiders, because this is a rare form, but per WP:NPA it is obvious.--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were asked, you would have admitted to it. That's fine, I'll assume good faith there. But you weren't asked, so the impression was given that there was more support for the change than there really was. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There was not, since they were all me, some of them I also overwritten the User:IP to User:Vince. This was an awfully hostile action, wich I took as a pa, because it is. Or such hostility is accepted here?

Otherwise Tankred is edit warring on Hungary's article for the 3rd day now. This is a content dispute, not resolved on the talk page yet. Should be at least warned. (both sides has <refs> to their versions - see my version)--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if someone (for ex Tankred) is not sure, how many ppl is really supporting something, wich is the normal, WP:FAITH way? Dropping a question abt the IPs, or ingoring all my comments, and acting such hostile? (answer: droppong a question)--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, VinceB has a long record of vandalism, personal attack and trolling. He has been blocked several times. Now, he is simply lying as I can easily prove. Let me quote what I have written earlier in a similar discussion at User talk:VinceB/Blabla1 because there are relevant diffs included: VinceB refused my suspicion that he/she had ever used the 195.56... IPs and he/she even called my initiation of the formal CheckUser procedure a "personal attack" [170]. For being one of two editors who exposed the connection between VinceB, Slovan, and the IPs, I have been harassed at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The "personal attack warning" templates have been placed by VinceB on my talk page. I will quote VinceB's reason: "I know that I didn't used sockpuppets, beause I has a username here." Please compare it with the present version "I nearly always do anonim edits instead of using this account". In other words, after the CheckUser confirmed his/her sockpuppetry, VinceB's version of the events was changed from not knowing the 195.56...s into using them in a benign way. I am sorry, but I do not buy it. The use of sockpuppets to vandalize articles[171][172] and to create impression that a controversial edit is supported by more than one editor[173] is not legitimate at all in my opinion. Tankred 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A short version: VinceB refused my suspicion that he used the 195.56... IPs here.[174]. In an edit summary, he even "agreed with" his own sock puppet as if it was someone else.[175] Tankred 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow I alwas agree with myself :), what a reveal! Dropping a question would be enough. But you did not do it. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ususal misinterpreting. I reflected to that User:Slovan or the IPs are sockpuppets of mine. Well, not, because IPs were me (if he would ever drop a question, I would confirm it, but this did not happened). IPs were a month before confirmed by me (see link above - sept 13? anyway september), when checkuser was made (oct 13? - anyway, october).

So In fact checkuser simply proved, that I am not lying, and what I state (for ex on my userpage) is true. Well, knowing this, this above is a personal attack, or not? See. And this line: "In other words, after the CheckUser confirmed his/her sockpuppetry, VinceB's version of the events was changed from not knowing the 195.56...s into using them in a benign way." is a LIE. Oops. Gotcha!

Oh, and whatever I say, Tankred says the same, I accused him POV pushing, he accused me of POV pushing, I accused him of trolling, then he immediately accused me of trolling, etc. The difference was that I always cited my statements, and gave diffs. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, again and more slowly: VinceB explicitly stated that 195.56.242.11 was not his IP and my suspicion that 195.56.242.11 was used by him as a sockpuppet was just a personal attack of mine.[176] A CheckUser proved that he indeed used 195.56.242.11 in a disruptive way. Now, he is saying "IPs were me" and "The first [CheckUser] one was also trolling". Who is lying now? And as for the ongoing CheckUser, I do not understand why my request is listed as an "incident" here. CheckUser is a standard procedure. If VinceB is innocent, CheckUser itself will clear his name. Tankred 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe read again my comments, since you missed some parts of it while reading. "(if he would ever drop a question, I would confirm it, but this did not happened)". So now you're trying to prove that what I said did not happened - in fact did not happened. :D --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You should read this also: [177] to see, what is he doing against me. I warned him the same way many tomes to stop calling me a vandal, wich he refused may times. Calling an editor troll/vandal, without evidence is a PA, see WP:TROLL and WP:NPA pages. I just acted the way, it is written down, by giving npa templates. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All the diffs of your previous vandalism can be found in the archived version of your talk page. I never use strong words (such as vandalism) without providing evidence. As to the link to a discussion from October that you have just posted here, I do not understand its relevancy. You were on probation at that period because your block was conditionally shortened from one week to 48 hours. What did you do? You reported a false violation of the 3RR rule by another user (no, not me in that case:-). The link is a discussion about that incident and I do not understand why you have put it here now. Tankred 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It demonstrates yr behaviour against me :-), but it's the same as here. Since we're having this discussion above for the 8th or 10th time, and you still does not understand/ignore/dunnowhat-you-do my comments, responses. I see at you as a troll in this case. One time is more than enough for discussing this. This is the 8th (?) time, my link above is at least the 7th time of this discussion. My link where I said you're trolling on yr userpage links to at least the 6th(?) version of the very same discussion between us wich can be seen here. So, you are now troling.--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. This is a blatant and irrefutable case of VinceB trying to bolster his position by masquerading as two separate users. The block was appropriate. There's nothing to discuss. You're wasting our time, VinceB. Hesperian 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism-like page move

Looks like Duja is not online. Could someone help him out? See User_talk:Duja#vandalism-like_page_move. Thanks! --Espoo 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also revert the vandalism-like edits (the history's been interrupted) that deleted important and valid information and violate WP policies on approved RMs and achieved consensus. The fact that these were done by an admin at the Swedish WP (User:MoRsE) means that these are very serious offenses. He knew exactly what he was doing. --Espoo 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:Cute 1 4 u

I think that Cute 1 4 u has made another sock, User:PumpkinPie. The reason I say this is because User:Pumpkin Pie (notice the space), who is a sock of C14u, welcomed User:PumpkinPie. PumpkinPie also only has on word on her main page, and that is the word "testing". I am reviving this because this discussion was lost in archive 150, and there was only one person that responded, saying that the last edit PumpkinPie made was in July. I can't remember what else that person said, I think it was that we didn't need to worry about it since the last edit was way back in July. I think we still need to block PumpkinPie if it is a sock. If it's not, then sorry for any trouble I may have caused - The RSJ 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, PumpkinPie is basically an abandoned account, and even if it was a sock, there would be no way to determine whether or not it was a sock through checkuser as the account is way too old. We can't even compare edits at this point.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by classmates with my first and last name

Just about every day, I revert vandalism on Wikipedia in my school library. Now, unfortunately, two of my classmates have seen me doing it, and have started vandalizing Wikipedia.

The problem is, they keep putting my first and last name in articles (see 1 2 3 for ones I definitely know about).

What I know is that they create accounts through the IP User_talk:208.108.145.4 and then vandalize Wikipedia with them, sometimes putting my name in articles.

I dont want to violate WP:LEGAL here (just trying to keep myself from getting banned), but could someone please delete those revisions and possibly block the IP for one month with account creation disabled to get them bored with vandalism?

I appreciate any help here. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you go to WP:RFO, you can request an oversight to permanently remove the edits. As for the user being dealt with, I (not an admin) don't know how Wikipedia would deal with a school IP inserting personal information. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 03:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, its not the school IP, its accounts made by the IP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You really ought to be taking this to your school authorities too. Hesperian 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have prevented account creation for your school's IP address and extended the block (which was going to expire on December 9) until December 23. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ban evasion and vandalism by Eowbotm

Note: This incident was automatically archived without resolution. I am reposting exactly as it appears in the archives. It's a pretty straightforward case and I would appreciate any feedback/remedies you guys can offer.

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

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

• Eowbotm1 [178][179][180]
• Eowbotm2 [181][182]
• Eowbotm3 [183][184]
• Eowbotm4 [185](I just now re-added this, is properly cited and should not have been removed) [186][187][188][189]

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

• And an edit indicating that Eowbotm3 is Eowbotm2. [190]
• And edits by Eowbotm3 and Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm, suggesting a link. [191] [192]
• An edit by Eowbotm1 to Eowbotm4, in case more evidence is needed. [193]

I've also found that this user cleared vandalism warnings off his talk pages for Eowbotm1 and Eowbotm4. And just did so again with Eowbotm1 (a day later).

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

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

Try WP:SSP? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't socks of indefinitely banned users just be banned by an admin though? WP:SSP takes 10 days. =/ —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can at least say that WP:SSP isn't necessary for vandalism-only accounts, and if those aren't sockpuppets, they're impersonators, which also violates Wikipedia policy(not sure which, however).--Vercalos 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub warfare?

• StubMcJones (talk • contribs)
  Appears to be a single-purpose-account created to obviate the "bat stub" in favour of the "mammal stub." Why anyone would care enough to do so, I have no idea. Does not respond to talk page messages, nothing on either template talk, I'm just guessing here.
  152.91.9.144 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops... there are only so many {{bat-stub}}s around, now it's {{cat-stub}}s. Do we have fat-stubs, mat-stubs, and rat-stubs as well?
152.91.9.144 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. Looks like it may be botting, and besides that it's seemingly obvious vandalism. Someone want to help revert all of these? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (news) disruptor is back again

Was using anon IPs, but is now using newly created, single purpose accounts, with objectionable attack-based account names. Consider this dif [194]. You have to hand it to this guy for his perserverence. Perhaps, however, he needs a new hobby. --Jayron32 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The linked user appears to be blocked now. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• I thhink it is way past time to take this to the foundation.--MONGO 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User:Irate evading block with User:87.75.130.177

Can someone please block this IP? His edits are causing disruption. MRSC • Talk 08:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My gosh. Glen S has blocked the IP address for a period of 72 hours. Now checking to determine whether or not this is an open proxy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AIV

There's a bit of a backlog building up at WP:AIV. Thanks. yandman 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Greier

Greier was blocked recently for a week for edit warring. This block was his fourteenth distinct block for edit warring and incivility. [195] He was given a one month block after his eighth back in May, and since then has received multiple blocks of a week or more, but shows absolutely no inclination to modify his unacceptable behavior. Atypically, the blocks don't seem to have been escalating in any order, and so he's now racked up an atrocious block log with no end in sight. He should have been banned log ago, in my opinion, and I have extended his current block to indefinite, expecting that no one will object, and the community's patience is (well beyond) exhausted. This is up for review. Dmcdevit·t 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. Repeated infringement of 3RR shows that he has no intention of abiding by the rules. --Srikeit 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed and also support this indef block. --FloNight 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support indef block.--MONGO 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support block for one year with 1RR probabtionary period to follow.—Doug Bell ^talk 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Long overdue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)