Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

Oh yes, this is going to go over well--name 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the stated purpose of the page was to use a Wikipedia: space page to organize editors to promote a partisan point of view, I am ignoring all rules and deleting the page. I am very specifically not using any existing speedy deletion criteria to do this, and am putting my action up here for review. I will not revert any admin who undoes my action. Nandesuka 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's physically impossible to pour too many megatons of salt over the earth where this page once stood. --Cyde↔Weys 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I agree with the deletion, but I also think that there is very little good that could have come from the association. If the association had been present, like the saints portal, to be sure that neglected figures of conservativism (are there any?) were represented, it wouldn't be a big deal, but there's no need for a project to do that. Besides, eventually the thing would have to have succumbed to battling "liberals," and liberals are, according to the sorts of people who hang out at conservativism projects, everywhere and include pretty much everyone who dissents, so it's probably delete it now or delete it after the RfC's, RFAR's, etc. have gone on. Wikipedia should never have factions. This is not Guild Wars. Geogre 15:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this deletion fully. Wikiprojects should be for widespread topics, not points of view. --InShaneee 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The avowed purpose of the page is not to promote a partisan point of view. It says: "This is the Conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to Conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of conservative Wikipedians." It seems similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild among others. I don't see any pressing reason this needs to be deleted now rather than after five days of deliberations at WP:MFD. I've restored the page. Haukur 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Haukurth's reversal. Take this one through process; or establish a policy to remove all projects about political philosophies (since, of course, the adherants of those philosophies will be the most interested in the projects.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between WikiProjects and "noticeboards". This one had a list of "action items" with links to Afds and Cfds on conservative topics. It was transparently a vote-stacking page. The deletion should not have been reversed. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh boy! WHEEL WAR! Someone get the lawn chairs; I'll bring the beer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Stop trolling. --Cyde↔Weys 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Personal attack withheld. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Cyde's assesment. This is humor. --mboverload@ 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested elsewhere, this is not WikiProject:Conservativism, this is Smash the filthy liberals: you bring the petrol and I'll bring the marshmallows. Unlike the Muslim project cited above, it makes no attempt to be neutral, merely listing pages on which "action" is required. If the Muslim Guild went the same way, I would advocate for deleting that also. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is deleting it better than just editing it into something neutral? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If a house has a rotten foundation you don't just keep pouring more plaster on the walls to cover up the cracks ... you demolish the house and start somewhere else on a steady foundation. If someone wants to try this thing from the ground-up with a neutral perspective, then that's one thing ... but the purpose of this page was very transparent. --Cyde↔Weys 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty useless metaphor on a Wiki. Reworking a page like this into something neutral and then moving it to a better title would be a excellent way to communicate how we function. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you deleted this project when it simply followed the model of the pre-existing Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board . --Facto 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Why was this debate closed so early (less than four hours after it started) and closed by an admin User:JDoorjam that voted for its deletion? --Facto 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that page was an utter violation of Wikipedia's policies. --Cyde↔Weys 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it conformed to the model of the pre-existing Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board, which also has lists of "action items" with links to Afds on LGBT topics. --Facto 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One is an issue of sexuality and another is an issue of partisan politics. I don't see the similarity. --Cyde↔Weys 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the US, everything is political. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism is a philosophy not just an issue of partisan politics. And LGBT is not all about sexuality, see http LGBT_movements and LGBT_Political_Investment_Caucus. --Facto 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I closed the MfD as a matter of housekeeping: the article was already deleted (appropriately, IMO, though not by me). You keep going back to the LGBT board, but obviously political conservatism and LGBT issues are not at all of the same ilk. It's the content and potential for misuse, not the formatting adopted, which editors objected to. In any case, WP:AN/I is the incorrect forum to discuss the form and merit of the Conservative notice board. JDoorjam Talk 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam, you say that political conservativism and LGBT issues are "obviously" not at all of the same ilk. I find that statement very un-obvious; certainly not obvious enough to warrant bypassing discussion in favor of a speedy deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. The MfD page was the place to discuss it, and you short-circuited that discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:MFD: "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas." From WP:DRV: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted." From these two page-purpose descriptions, it's my interpretation that MfD is not, in fact, the correct place to discuss pages which have already been deleted. JDoorjam Talk 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT notice board has potential for misuse as well. Also, I did not start the discussion here. --Facto 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the LGBT notice board has the potential to be misused and believe you would be within the guidelines at WP:POINT, I would recommend airing those concerns on the talk page of that board. However, this discussion has not been about, and most likely will not morph into, a discussion about the LGBT board. That you did not start the discussion here does not mean that this is the correct place to discuss these issues. I am not placing blame for using the wrong forum; I'm simply pointing out the fact that this isn't the appropriate place to have the discussion. If you would like the deletion reviewed, I would recommend you air your grievance at WP:DRV. You are unlikely to receive any response or cause any action on this board that you would find satisfactory. JDoorjam Talk 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you and other editors believed the conservative notice board had the potential to be misused then why didn't you air those concerns on the talk page of that board instead of ignoring all rules (Nandesuka) and deleting the project. I'll check WP:DRV later.--Facto 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people want to delete a page, some people want to keep it. Outside the narrowly defined speedy-deletion criteria, our procedure in cases like that is to hold a discussion at *fD on the merits of keeping or deleting. Meanwhile the page itself is kept readable to all. After five days or so someone closes the discussion and if there is a consensus to delete, the page is deleted. This mechanism has served us well for years. When individual admins ignore all rules and summarily delete content they don't approve of they are spitting in the face of our community-based decision making. Now non-admins can't even view the page to comment intelligently upon whether it should be undeleted. I can understand that in cases where something is seriously embarrassing or damaging (and yet doesn't meet the CSD criteria) it may make sense to shoot first and ask questions later. But no one has claimed that allowing the page in question to stand open for five days would cause any damage. Haukur 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the impatience. Why bypass *fD, if it seems remotely controversial? Maybe this didn't seem remotely controversial to Nandesuka, but by now it's clear that there is difference of opinion. I don't even think it's clear that this page should have been deleted instead of improved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Haukur, you've said just what I've been trying to say. I rather think this page should be deleted, and would happily say so on WP:MFD. However, I am very strongly opposed to this out of process deletion, and worse twice. It doesn't come remotely close to any of the CSD criteria, and is a perfect candidate for WP:MFD. I don't understand why the admins who deleted this are so bothered by it hanging around a few days while it undergoes the proper deletion process. Incidentally, I really can't see any difference between this and the LGBT one, it seems to have exactly the same purpose to me, and therefore either both should be kept or both deleted. Petros471 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that when the page is such an outrageous violation of Wikipedia policies, like this one, it turns the situation on its head. It's not "what's the harm of letting it hang around a few more days," it's "why should we have to put up with this egregious misuse of Wikipedia for a few more days?" Crap gets deleted immediately, not after a waiting period. --Cyde↔Weys 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you are quite wrong about that. Crap very, very often gets deleted after a waiting period. Your impatience (or Nandesuka's, or anyone's) is no reason to change how we do things. Take your time, explain why something is crap, and if it's truly obvious, everyone at *fD will agree, as very, very often happens. If it's not that way, it's possible that it wasn't crap, and that some course of action other than deleting might be wiser. It is utterly unobvious to me that this noticeboard is an egregious violation, when almost identical noticeboards exist unmolested, and I really don't see the argument that Conservativism is different from LGBT issues in a way that makes it obviously un-noticeboard-worthy. This seems to me to be a perfect candidate for rescoping in a way that educates all the editors involved about how we see the NPOV policy working. Handing them a cause to complain about process violation, practically begging to be criticized on utterly beside-the-point procedural grounds, is actually stupid, and helps to prevent the right conversation from happening. "Crap gets deleted" is a foolish motto to speedy-delete with, unless your goal is to generate DRAMA! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I regret commenting about the LGBT page. This discussion is not about that page. It's about the merits of and problems with the now-deleted conservative portal. "Either they both stay or they both go!" arguments are rather pointless, as the page in question needs to be able to stand on its own merits. The deletion of the LGBT page would have no bearing on whether the page in question has any value. When this inevitably makes it to DRV, I'll comment there; as WP:AN/I is the wrong forum for continued discussion about the matter, this will be my last comment about the deletion on this page. JDoorjam Talk 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Crap should be edited, not deleted. -- Daniel Davis 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This would leave you with well-edited crap. Which would, nonetheless, still be crap. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatsamatter Calton, you've never edited crap into something that was no longer crap? You should try it sometime. POV-ectomies are good perspective stretching exercise; speedy deletions cause that part of the brain to atrophy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wavering on this until I saw that the defence of it was "well the gays have a noticeboard". Salt the earth, set the salt on fire, douse the fire with cyanide, nuke the cyanide from orbit, then throw the orbit into a black hole. WP:NOT Fark.com. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the deletion of the project unwarranted but also the page protection. None of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_permanent_or_semi-permanent_protection_is_used_for: are met. --Facto 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You were caught trying to recruit over 50 conservatives to your new noticeboard. Why I didn't just block you for spamming escapes me at the moment. This clearly was not a good faith effort to create a noticeboard about conservative issues. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of spamming Tony as it is incivility. I already told you on your talk page that the precedent had been set for inviting people to notice boards. I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues to a project page where we can share articles of interest. Admin User:Samuel Wantman did the same thing when he started the WP:LGBT notice board, inviting editors interested in LGBT issues. See [1] and [2] Thanks. --Facto 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to grant you any assumption of good faith when you continually give me a good solid reason to doubt it. You say: "I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues" but this is what you said to those editors (my highlighting):

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks.

You contacted those editors, not because of their interest in conservative issues, but because of their self-asserted conservative political leanings. You're pretending that it didn't happen. And just because you did the spamming by hand doesn't mean it wasn't spamming. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the canonical defense would be truth, and that one seems to be ironclad. You've spammed many talkpages for this. Also, WP:SALT is where you'd look for the protection precedent. -M^ask 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SALT says, "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions, it becomes prudent to protect these pages in a deleted form. This practice is commonly known as "padlocking" or "salting the earth" and should be used at the discretion of the deleting administrator. You can use {{Editprotected}} to edit these pages." Also, please do not accuse me of spam when I followed cross-posting guidelines and admin precedent. --Facto 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're highlighting the wrong part there, chief. "This practice is commonly known as "padlocking" or "salting the earth" and should be used at the discretion of the deleting administrator. Try again. -M^ask 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No I did not highlight the wrong part. Protected pages are considered harmful. "These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances." And the limit is defined as "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions" --Facto 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness

Folks, you are kidding yourselves if you think Muslim Guild and LGBT noticeboards are not centers for precisely this type of advocacy and solicitation. Alternately, you're fully aware of this, which is even more disturbing. I'd suggest that all such partisan Guilds and projects be deleted, but short of that, this smacks of manipulating the system to achieve a desired content bias throughout the affected articles. Nor is this the first issue in recent days which suggests that the idelogies of favored "minorities" are acceptable, but American conservatism is not. I'm not opposed to drawing distinctions, as some ideologies are broadly accepted to be beyond the pale (e.g. Nazism, segregationism), but I'd like us to be upfront about what they are and not play games like "conservatism is political, LGBT is sexual." There is a name for the ideology which considers Islamism and LGBT as oppressed classes worthy of special protection (never mind that under Islamic law the LGBT crowd must be executed), while conservatism merits scorn. It's called political correctness, and it doesn't deserve our support.Timothy Usher 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A simple endorsement. Haizum 08:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you worry about our political bias: this would have been nuked had it been the other way around, you can be assured. In any case, anybody who accuses me of "political correctness" obviously has never actually paid attention to anything I say; now excuse me while I go and give my cats a good laugh! HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all and anything like them. They're all partisan, they're all edit rings, and they all should go. There are already categories to help editors navigate through related topics, and there are already article talk and user talk pages to discuss things. Such projects are just ways to facilitate and evade restrictions on spam by gathering like-minded editors in one place.Timothy Usher 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

POV clans and vote solicitation are known problems. Whether it's for a cause we favor or one we oppose, we need to stop it when we see it. I think we sometimes fail to see it when we like the result. I know I see it more clearly when I don't. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

POV clans and vote solicitation are known problems. At some point, it would be very useful to collect some explanation of and evidence for this claim in a place where we could point people to it when it comes up. If that already exists, I'd appreciate a link. It seems we are obliged to repeat ourselves far too often on this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Alliance and this one are two that immediately spring to mind (since I was involved in dealing with both). --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia.Timothy Usher 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Careful now we don't want anouther wikpedians for decency on our hands. Some things are just a bad idea. The old wikiproject alt med was so POV that it caused problems.Geni 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch is ok, but this group of links isn't? - brenneman ^{L} 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We really need a policy about schools. They're constantly swamping WP:AFD, and it's really never clear what to do with them. Paying attention to the fates of the myriad school articles -- kept, merged, deleted -- may be the first step toward establishing at least a guideline in that arena. You don't see that as a value-add? JDoorjam Talk 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it actually possible to delete schools again? For a while, even hoax articles on schools were hard to delete. --Carnildo 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's never possible to delete schools. I think I figured out why - if they start to get deleted (as they should be), then people's vanity articles about their own schools would be in danger. So they just mindlessly vote 'keep please schools are notbale too' (spelling intended). Oh, yeah, and Nandesuka goes on my list of admins I like for applying common sense over some garbled, policy-wonking Wikilawyering. Sadly, it's still a small list. Proto///type 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As uncomfortable as I feel about people discussing me and my motivations, I would hope that people assume good faith whenever a notice board is created. I put some effort into the creation and management of the Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board so that it is not seen as politicizing Wikipedia. The LGBT notice board has stated clearly from the start that it is for ANYONE interested in articles related to LGBT topics. The reason someone is interested may well be because they believe they should all be deleted. When I found out about the current controversy, I went to look at the deleted pages to see if they were so constituted. It concerns me that this page has been deleted, because it puts the LGBT board in a similar threatened position.

I think the conservative board was presented in a pretty much NPOV way, and I appreciate that it used the LGBT board as a model. The test for a board that has postings about controversial articles or issues, is if it would be useful to people on both sides of the issue. In this case, I would have found the board useful even though I in no way consider myself a conservative.

Anyone who works on controvesial articles, whether they be related to politics, reproductive rights, religion, or sexuality, more likely than not will bring their own bias into play to some degree. The question is, what is the best way for the Wikipedia community to address those biases. People may think that the LGBT notice board is attempting to organize support around LGBT issues. I don't see it that way. I see it as people being honest about the issues that concern us. The LGBT notice board is as much a vehicle for everyone to watch us, as it is about us watching an issue. I hope that the conservative board, and those like it can be restored, stripped of any POV bias if necessary, and allowed to peacefully coexist. -- Samuel Wantman 03:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at WP:LGBT? Obviously, deleting this conservative noticeboard was correct ... but I see multiple xFDs listed on the LGBT board that all got plenty of vote stacking. Why is ANYTHING that serves as a clearinghouse for votes allowed to continue? Having a list of articles of interest that need work is fine IMO - for gays or for Conservatives - but listing xFD debates is pure vote stacking. BigDT 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to assume good faith. The notice board lists are a useful feature, not vote-stacking. And it exists in many Wikiprojects (Schools, etc) - not just notice boards. We all know there are MANY POV-motivated nominations for article deletion. Most of the editors who use the LGBT notice board are busy working on other projects - and unable to constantly check up on the VFD (AFD) boards every day (or every week), because instead of being involved in the politics of voting for deletion every day or talking on talk pages, we are writing - or editing actual content articles. The notice board allows us to give notice to each other when articles in our area of expertise are being discussed or voted on elsewhere - probably by folks who are honestly ignorant about issues and factual realities. Notice boards ensure a sunshine law-type running of this project and allows experts in topics to voice their opinions/concerns and helps ensure the quality of this project will steadily improve. Davodd 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it, as someone might easily in good faith believe, and in these cases probably usually does believe, that religious, political or otherwise partisan revert-solicitation and vote-stacking improves wikipedia.Timothy Usher 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I still cannot understand why conservative noticeboard was has been singled out for speedy deletion and protection. At least for the sake of consistency, other similar noticeboards must be speedily deleted and protected. Pecher ^Talk 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of this project is outrageous, and I'm disappointed in the "logic" used to justify it. Haizum 08:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic:

• A noticeboard is for those intereted in the topic, all are welcome.
• Since all are welcome, a "conservative" noticeboard may attract conservatives, yes, but it will also attract those that wish to make sure articles related to conservatism are kept up to quality standards.
• A conservative noticeboard will therefore attract a diversity of editors; this is no different from any other article on Wikipedia; it attracts people that are interested.
• Since all are welcome, and since various groups may take an interest in a conservative noticeboard as they may take an interest in any other article, you cannot assume that such a board will only serve a conservative agenda just as you cannot assume that any particular article will serve any agenda.
• If you cannot assume that an agenda will be served, you have no reason to oppose the creation of a conservative noticeboard as it will only serve to attract a diversity of editors, which is positive. Haizum 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated the project for deletion because of recruitment message that the founders sent out to 50 people, including unrepentant POV-pushers with a history of attempted votstacking, and because the only articles it targeted were ones that the founders were in meaningless revert wars over. I suggest if people want a conservatism notice board, they make one, and link articles that could use people with special knowledge about conservatism could be helpful with - for instance, Edmund Burke, but not articles that people with special opinions could edit war over - for instance, Partisan Bitchfest with STONES. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If such activities are unauthorized, why not take action against the individuals? Why punish those that might be well served by such a noticeboard? What happened to AGF? Haizum 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed when we redirected WP:AGF to Wikipedia:Ignore Bad Acts, like, say, spamming 50 people who have edit warred on your side of issues to get them to join your "neutral" project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Both sides are right... or wrong, take your pick. The organizer(s) of this page clearly 'leaned' towards one side of the political spectrum... but the page clearly did not (as yet) present any bias. It simply listed issues relevant to the topic like any other noticeboard - some of which also have 'leanings'. If one assumes (bad faith) that the page was going to develop into a 'bias springboard' then an out of process deletion would be justified... but I don't think we can, or rather should, make such assumptions.

All that aside... would it not make more sense / be more generally acceptable to instead create a 'Politics noticeboard'? Truthfully, a great many issues 'important to conservatives' are also 'important to liberals' and vice versa. You could put the same list of articles that this page had onto a 'Liberal noticeboard' and they would fit perfectly... all topics that people 'interested in liberal issues' might want to comment on. Putting 'conservative' in the name when the issues are really of interest to all sides might imply that the page is only or primarily for conservatives. Make it a page for the issues without reference to one particular viewset over another, put little 'noticeboard advertisement banners' on the talk pages of relevant articles, and try to work together. --CBD 10:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a politics noticeboard is a great idea - it would concentrate all the lunatics, trolls and POV warriors in one place, and we could live happily ever after. Proto///type 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the best suggestion I've heard so far on this issue. Petros471 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this would be obvious. No issue is exclusively "conservative" or "liberal". Even liberals have an opinion on conservative opinions. A politics noticeboard is the best way to go, and I would have suggested it earlier had I not forgotten about it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is people have a tendency to take ordinary, non-political articles and turn them into politically-flavored-flame-balls--64.12.116.65 15:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that the page was deleted out of hand and the discussion short-circuited. Restore the page, protect it, restore the MfD, and move the discussion there.- Merzbow 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This poorly-named page professed to be a place for organization of editing to topics related to conservatism. It seems natural to me that the project creator would invite conservatives to participate, since conservatives obviously are interested in conservatism. I suggest a rename, not a deletion, and I find the deletion to be entirely unilateral. IAR does not give you the right to supercede consensus. Nevertheless I will not wheel-war about it. Deco 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented this idea at Wikipedia:Politics notice board since there seemed to be some support and it should address the 'NPOV' concerns. --CBD 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Politics notice board was quickly deleted as a re-creation, but there are discussions about restoring it on its talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

Removed. Does not require administrator action. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sufficient indication of legal threat for blocking?

Hello. Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a post [3] which I believe consititutes a legal threat. I cautioned him,[4] and he has essentially reiterated the threat.[5] Is there community consensus that this does in fact consitute a legal threat and is there community consensus for an indefinite block? I also see much evidence of incivility both at the article where the legal threat was made as well as elsewhere in the user's edit history.Johntex\^talk 05:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The diffs I see have only an argument about whether personal recollections by a subject are allowable (Sbharris says they are, because they do not conflict with WP:BLP, Johntex says they are not, because they violate WP:CITE). Sbharris did not make a legal threat in any of those diffs. He simply theorized about what kinds of information the courts might rule on. It seems to me that perhaps Johntex got confused and thought that McCoy and Sbharris are the same person, but there is no reason to think so. I think this is an overreaction, and I unblock. -lethe ^{talk +} 12:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The text which looks vaguely like a legal threat is

"Courts tend to regard "public figures" as people who actively try to put themselves in the public eye (like politicians or actors-- the people in your example list), and not people who are simply dragged into the public eye 40 years ago, by means of a single tragic occurance which made it into the news then. So have a care, because you're on thin legal ice, and complaints to Wiki are going to a lot more effective here than if Maddona was complaining. You understand?" -sbharris

(and note that this comment was in an earlier reply, not in any of the diffs Johntex provides) But anyway this looks to me like merely an explanation of why McCoy might have a case if there were libelous material in the article. Sbharris is explaining to Wookitty that in fact people are not prohibited from editing their own articles, something which Wookitty had claimed. In fact, Sbharris is quite right in this matter: people are allowed (though discouraged) to edit their own articles, and the courts do indeed take a disfavourable view towards damaging information about people who are only unwillingly famous. Wikipedia has acted on this theory before (see the star wars kid). Sbharris claiming that McCoy might have a legal case if there is false information does not constitute a legal threat on Sbharris's part. -lethe ^{talk +} 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris' remark looks like a legal threat to me. I think the block was appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The intent to chill discussion by making (vague) legal threats is clear. Just because they aren't very effective legal threats is no reason to avoid blocking for them. Nandesuka 12:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously I disagree. Harris was correcting Wookitty, and Johntex mixed up Harris with McCoy. But if you have to reblock, then I won't wheel about it. -lethe ^{talk +} 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He was, I think, saying that someone else may take legal action or complain. He does not plan to initiate or participate in it in any way. Therefore, I don't think he was making a legal threat. If the concern has a real basis in law (I have no idea), then I think it would even be prudent to point it out. Is there something I'm missing? -- Kjkolb 12:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider this comment from a later diff see below, [6]:

COMMENT:' Thus, those who plan on re-inserting any unsourced negative biographical 
material which I remove under this policy, may find themselves on the negative end of what 
it says above may happen. In that case, please don't say you acted in ignorance of the 
possible consequences. Thank you.  Sbharris 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I read that as him attempting to use vague legal threats as a way of gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. This isn't "be careful, or Wikipedia might get in trouble" it's "you had better do what I say, or you will get sued." I currently intend to re-apply the block, but I'll wait a while and see what people here have to say.Nandesuka 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have given a diff to a comment by Johntex, not by Sbharris. -lethe ^{talk +} 12:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed it -- take another look. Nandesuka 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The "negative end" which Sbharris refers to is blocking. He is making threats that people who insert libelous material will be blocked in accordance with WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Libel. Read the text immediately preceding the comment you quote to see the context. It is not a legal threat. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me -- that second diff I posted was indeed referring to blocking, and not legal action. I withdraw my objection. Nandesuka 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris has been unblocked (by Lethe) and is appealing the block at WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to call people's atttention back to Sbharris' first statement (provided in full in my first diff in my original post in this section):

...There are ways of verifying the source of material involving notaries, and when they need to be employed in legal action, the footer of the expense bill is generally the person who is/was the skeptic (unless of couse they were right). So again, beware. Cause you're putting your money, and the Wiki Foundations's money, where YOUR mouth is. And the Wiki Foundation is very conservative about such things. When they get complaints, they tend to block pages until legal issues have been settled. Sbharris 18:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The warning about potential financial damages to an editor is what I think is a thinly veiled legal threat. Johntex\^talk 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced that sbharris' posts constituted a bona fida legal threat, they were definitely assholery and a (short) block was warranted on that basis alone. Wag the finger at him and cut him loose. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly WP:CIVIL is held to apply only to me. For I come to a Wiki page here, and find another user publicly labeling my opinions "assholery." Irony. Steve 21:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I look at the diff referred to and, frankly, don't see a "threat" to anyone per se, but a reference to a possible action by a third party (the WMF). It did seem to me that User:Johntex over-reacted a bit though with User:Sbharris then 'joining in' as it were. This may (or may not!) be a difference of understanding in the way something is phrased (an issue I have come across many times, usually in a en_UK -v- en_US context). I don't see that either user deserved to be blocked.--AlisonW 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir solicits meatpuppets to do his reverting for him

Israel_shamir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for his activities at Israel Shamir and for racist attacks, see above, and meanwhile the article has been reverted to Shamir's preferred version by a brand new user, RhinoRick (talk · contribs). I blocked RhinoRick as an obvious sock, but now it turns out that he is more likely to be a meatpuppet, unblushingly recruited by Shamir through a message board[7]. (User:Denis Diderot sent me this link.) I think this action by Shamir warrants a longer block. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

• I strongly agree. Also, semi-protecting the page in question for a bit might be warranted, as well. --InShaneee 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree too. Block him and block all meatpuppets, as the more he edits, the more disruptive he becomes. Pecher ^Talk 17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised he had not already been blocked indefinitely.--Mantanmoreland 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Me too... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no longer any room for assumption of either good faith or newbie ignorance. It's time to put this one to bed. Since I'm seeing little in the way of defense of this guy, we'll skip the "all in favor" and go directly to "Is anyone opposed to an indefinite block of this guy?" Tomer^talk 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My own feeling is that there are three different block discussions going on:

1. User name violations
2. Hate speech, repeated
3. Calls for intervention and 3RR

and the three folks aren't talking to each other very clearly. As for #1: if the user has an article on himself, then he can't have the name, but the user shouldn't have a page about himself, because he is not actually substantial enough for the .se Wikipedia to have an article on him. As for #2: absolutely. This user's speech has been horrid and continuing. However, for process sake, I don't think an indefinite ban for hate speech is at all allowable. Personal attacks and bad speech is not sufficient, IMO. The user's edits are not all vandalism. Instead, they're all worthless, but worthless isn't vandalism. There are plenty of ArbCom cases of people calling each other "communist fascist" and the like, and since there are no priviledged classes, the mere hatred behind the terminology can't allow an indefinite block without consensus. For #3, the call for meatpuppets is at least a cause for resetting a 3RR block for the duration that the call for intervention is visible. In this case, I think the worst offense should be treated. To me, that's #2, not #3. I'd say a month block for repeated and pretty much sole attack and hate speech is appropriate and a referral to mediation/ArbCom after that month at the first sign of attack language. Incidentally, I think that Israel Shamir should be sent to AfD after the block is in place. If that is disrupted by any calls for intervention, etc., I'd say we're looking at an indefinite block. Geogre 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, from the point of view of the encyclopedia, I believe that the worst offense is not the hate speech, it's the "All edits worthless" and its concomitant "user is not here to build the encyclopedia". I've gone through his edits, and they may be divided into POV rants in article space, extreme personal attacks on userpages, and additions of useless external links. Following your argument I will block indefinitely for encyclopedic uselessness, not for the call for meatpuppets. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

P. S. Excuse me, I forgot to mention that User:KimvdLinde who placed the week-long block is on wikibreak till the beginning of July, or I would have consulted with him, naturally. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

I think that it would not change anything... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre: I think the only "problem" with the 3 simultaneous discussions/causes of action against this user is which each of us thinks is the worst of his blockable offenses, not that some of us regard one as a problem but not the other two, etc. I don't think we're talking past each other so much as saying "yeah, I saw that, but look at this! this is even more outrageous!", all the while agreeing that everything is sufficient cause to block him indefinitely. The guy needs to go for all three reasons, and I think sufficient evidence has been brought to demonstrate that an indefinite block for any of them will meet with zero admin disagreement. We can discuss and discuss all day which of his offenses is worst, but at the end of the day, the verdict is still an indefinite block. Cheers, Tomer^talk 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of terrible in being process oriented. I'm well aware that our dispute processes are...overburdened?...but I worry very much that a lack of dissent on one project page (this one) be taken for positive assent from the project. Again, I'm certainly not defending this person or his actions. I think he's probably irredeemable, but I'm concerned that we have all allowed "well, I'll mention it on AN/I" to replace our fuller, slower, but surer methods. I also don't like relying on "well, anyone else can block for a shorter time." Again, in no sense do I vouch for this anti-semite. I'm all for a block, and past offenses are plentiful, but past remediating actions aren't. Even though it won't do any good, I recommend a month. <shrug> I'm just one scold, but that's my nagging opinion. Geogre 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to dragging it out, I just don't see any point in doing so, other than to placate the policymongers. If I think this discussion has served pretty well as an RfC, and I don't see how an RfM would go anywhere...I don't like to sound so dismissive of this guy, but sometime reality has to strike and say "THERE IS NO HOPE". As happens far too often, this guy would simply take the extra time he's given while we go through "process", to continue flagrantly violating every WP policy in existence (I can't think of one he hasn't violated, except perhaps naming conventions, but that takes productive editing to violate...), meanwhile productive editors are being tied up not only undoing his useless edits, but now also with compiling all the voluminous evidence against him for presentation. If it were to ever go as far as ArbCom, I think they'd be very annoyed with us wee little admins for having dumped such a clear-cut BAN ON SIGHT case on them, as though they don't have enough TRICKY cases to work on. My 3¢, for what it's worth. (inflation, you know... ) Tomer^talk 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really very simple: multiple reasons for indefinite block. Ergo an indefinite block is warranted.--Mantanmoreland 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 objects to personal attack warning by Tony_Sidaway

I reported a personal attack from Terryeo. Sidaway threatens me with a block on the accusation that I falsely reported a personal attack, which was "User:Fahrenheit451 uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely. I had referred to this user as a banned user as he is banned from editing Scientology articles. Sidaway evidently warned me on an article discussion page, but not on my user talk page and claims that I have been warned before, then gave me a "final warning" on my talk page. I would like this situation looked into. --Fahrenheit451 22:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse banned user Terryeo. Publicly accessible websites and newsgroups are published, per the definition. --Fahrenheit451 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty sleazy backhand --mboverload@ 22:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Learn how to use diffs. I'm not doing your investigation for you. And mboverload, seriously. --Cyde↔Weys 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

...Now I'm just confused. Anyway, I came across this diff, I'm not sure how they relate. 1 --mboverload@ 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here but this guy hasn't presented his case coherently at all and I'm not about to do his investigation for him. My default position is to side with Tony Sidaway, who I know rather well. --Cyde↔Weys 23:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. Without a clean presentation or evidence there is nothing we can do for you Fahrenheit. However, it doesn't seem as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Please present the whole story along with diffs. --mboverload@ 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I confused you, I incorrectly interpreted your comment "That's a pretty sleazy backhand" as an attack on Tony Sidaway. --Cyde↔Weys 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. np. --mboverload@ 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Fahrenheit451 twice to stop referring to Terryeo habitually as "banned user Terryeo". As the first warning was on Talk:Patter drill I've corrected an earlier statement that I had already warned him. Apparently he left that discussion before I replied.

Although Terryeo is banned from certain articles, Fahrenheit451's use of that term in addressing and referring to Terryeo is clearly prejudicial and has the nature of a personal attack. Terryeo isn't perfect but his current relatively civil behavior should be encouraged and I'm warning Fahrenheit451 off because it is important to rehabilitate Terryeo as an editor and his activities are prejudicial to that. I have warned Fahrenheit451 that he will be blocked if he persists in addressing or referring to other editors as "banned user". --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think calling someone a "banned user", even if it's true, shouldn't be done if it does not have a clear relation to a conversation. It looks like he used it as a debate tool rather than bothering to present his case, an ad hominem if you will. --mboverload@ 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I waited for fifteen minutes on irc for your reply. A warning must be communicated to the intended party to be valid and you left it on an article discussion page. I left the patter drill discussion as I found further dialogue with Terryeo to be unproductive. --Fahrenheit451 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack from Terryeo was here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Is_an_opinion_on_a_personal_website_a_.22published.22_opinion.3F I made the complaint here: User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Another_personal_attack_by_Terryeo Sidaway responds with this: User_talk:Fahrenheit451#Personal_attacks_on_Terryeo I chatted with Sidaway via irc and this did not resolve anything. --Fahrenheit451 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He gave you a warning which you saw and told you he gave you another on the talk page. Why not just accept that and realize that your behavior is not appropriate? --mboverload@ 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Falsehood. He did NOT give me an initial warning. He evidently put it on an article discussion page. I did see the second warning on my user discussion page. His conduct as an administrator was not proper in that instance.--Fahrenheit451 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, now you have been warned. You have not been blocked, so nothing much has happened to you yet. Could we drop this here? Kusma (討論) 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, could you please explain what was improper about warning you against referring to Terryeo as "banned user Terryeo"? --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you are loading the question, which should be: "What do you consider improper?" I consider your sticking a "warning" on a article discussion page and considering that it was valid, then giving me a final warning on my user discussion page, falsely stating you already warned me. Also, I object to what appears to be a hidden standard on what constitutes a personal attack from Terryeo. --Fahrenheit451 23:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if that's true, why not calmly inform Tony that you think he is in error, and even calmly ask his complete reasoning if you don't understand it. Why are you here? --mboverload@ 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And if someone gives you a final warning for personal attacks, STOP, HAMMER TIME. --mboverload@ 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL!--Fahrenheit451 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so Fahrenheit gets a final warning for stating that a user banned of editing certain articles, is in fact a banned user on one of the articles he is banned from's talk page with the claim that his statement was a personal attack, even though it is most definitely a true statement (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo). And, Terryeo, makes the comment "uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely"[8] about Fahrenheit, and he actually gets a friendly message to tell him "I've issued a final warning to Fahrenheit451 for repeatedly attacking you, calling you a "banned user", and falsely accusing you of making personal attacks on him" [9]

Does that seem somewhat (perhaps Very) unbalanced to anyone else?! - Glen Stollery 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know? No proper case was ever presented. --mboverload@ 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand when the diffs are above for each component

1. Terryeo is uncivil
2. Fahrenheit takes it to Tony
3. Tony posts a seemingly sudden final warning on Fahrenheit's user page, based on
4. Fahrenheit's uncivil comment
5. Tony then posts friendly "thought you should know" style comment about Fahrenheit's final warning to Terryeo.

Even if both users were uncivil surely both should be dealt with using the same yard stick? Surely? - GIen 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy with the outcome. The arbitration remedies applying to Terryeo, who has historically been a problem user, remain, but he is protected from undue harassment by Fahrenheit451. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic here Tony when the arbitration closed months ago and Terryeo's comments were made last week It would appear the historically problem editor may not in fact be so historic... - GIen 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This presupposes that Terryeo's comments were personal attacks, a claim that I think you need to prove. It's all very well for you to present a slanted account of matters, but this will not be much use in persuading those whose view of what transpired is different from your own. --Tony Sidaway 05:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually above you'll see that in fact I used the term uncivil to describe both their comments: an opinion that I am was fairly sure you shared when writing, so no presupposition of that nature is was made at all. However, if it is your opinion (and it would seem from your last post that it may well be) that Terryeo acted in complete civillity at all times and the sole party causing disruption is Fahrenheit then, well, I guess as a sysop that is your call and that is the end of that. I was/am of the assumption (WP:AGF even) that perhaps both parties were maybe over-reacting somewhat, but the reason I actually made comment here was purely on the basis by which each was handled. Regarding your closing statement, I of course am well aware that if someone reading this has already made up their mind then my comments serve little purpose. However, with respect, I believe the whole point in a venue such as this is that those persons looking into these concerns most likely have not formed a view "different from my own" until after they've actually read all the commentary herein. Glen 05:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Is there any particular reason that you continue to remove the sole green 'e' from my signature? A signature which, I might add, which including the green e font markup still only totals a mere 3 letters longer in wikicode than your own. Seems strange you remove it from my 44 length sig yet are happy to leave the @ that also occurs in this section. Seems an odd time to demonstrate what seems to be two sets of rules for two users, but, again, I will ASF and wait for your reponse before making that call.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that my rejection of Fahrenheit451's complaint about a personal attack meant that I think Terryeo acts with perfect civility at all times. What I did see when I investigated the complaint, however, was a clear personal attack on Terryeo by Fahrenheit451. There are nearly 1000 administrators on Wikipedia, and if none can be found to treat Fahrenheit451's complaint as actionable, I suggest that it was probably not actionable. --Tony Sidaway 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be false dichotomy if I assumed one implied the other - however it was not a sweeping statement on my part. Specifically my phasing was in line with how I saw the two being handled, final warning vs. nil. However even your edit above, the words "it was probably not actionable" does not seem to envoke the severity in levels of treatment each user received (or perhaps you were simply being polite in your wording). Well, I have no more to say, thank you for your time and look forward to hearing feedback from others. - Glen 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PS: You forgot to respond to my PS too.

Jesus, is it just me, or is this noticeboard regularly used for lengthy discussions of Tony's rough admining style and signature crusade now? Somebody called a "partly banned user" a "banned user"? Are there no more pressing concerns on Wikipedia (I wish)? I honestly think some people here seriously need to take a step back. dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like it, yeah. It's bothersome that incidents related to this one user are now mildly overwhelming this page.

In the present case, it seems to me as if Wikipedia admins are being used without their awareness to censor facts on the Scientology-related articles. It is a fact that user Terryeo is banned from those articles for specific conduct. Admins who are acting on requests or "warnings" posted by this user should be made aware of that fact. --FOo 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard will readily confirm my familiarity with the Scientology shenanigans. I am also very familiar with the Terryeo arbitration case, because as a clerk, I opened that case on April 3 and closed it on 13 May, and have had occasion to block Terryeo for repeatedly breaching his personal attack parole.

The current case arrived from a bogus complaint of a personal attack by Terryeo, made by another editor. Upon investigating the complaint, I found that the complainant, having repeatedly engaged in personal attacks himself in the past, was still at it. I warned him not to engage in further personal attacks. This is not "rough adminning", it's what any good admin would do in similar circumstances. All we're seeing her is the fallout of an editor who was dissatisfied with the outcome of his bogus complaint.. --Tony Sidaway 08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Tony. My complaint about Terryeo was valid, and still is. You can attempt to intellectualize it and justify it, but it remains a valid complaint. You, as an administrator, failed to communicate the initial warning to me on my user talk page. Instead, you dropped it on an article talk page, at a point where I broke off discussion with Terryeo. As an administrator, you should know that if you want to be certain to communicate to another user, it needs to go on their talk page. Also, the issue was not the generality of "personal attacks" as you now state, but my epithet of banned user, which Terryeo is for Scientology articles. I think this instance of rough adminning is a result of your not taking the additional effort to properly contact another user with an objection, and, not recognizing or really knowing the scope of what constitutes a personal attack. --Fahrenheit451 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If your complaint about Terryeo is indeed valid, then you should be able to find at least one administrator out of nearly 1000 to block him under his personal_attack_parole]. You falsely describe my warning to you as "rough adminning". It was not. It was a very serious warning to you that you must heed: stop engaging in personal attacks on Terryeo. --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My situation now is with you, Tony. It is far more important than Terryeo who is a known commodity. Your improper warning procedure was indeed "rough adminning". Also, you editing Glen's signature is very bizarre. What are your motives for doing that?--Fahrenheit451 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is never pretty, and it's not clever. You've been warned. The only rough thing about it is that you seem to think that an experienced editor is entitled to more than one warning.

The signature? Oh it's just a habit I have. In this case editing the signature made the username more apparent (he's GIen, not Glen) and so perhaps that's why I did it. Who knows? --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Is_an_opinion_on_a_personal_website_a_.22published.22_opinion.3F is supposed to be a personal attack? That's ridiculous. Fahrenheit451, what are your motives for wasting ANI space and everybody's time? Bishonen | talk 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

if you want to address tony's "habit" of editing other user's sigantures, there is always Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3

-- frymaster 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:MichaelIsGreat

This user has done nothing but attempt to write Bösendorfer to his satisfaction, and when challenged by others, he responds with heated, novel-length rambles, both on his own talk page as well as the talk page of the aforementioned making it difficult for many (including me) to understand what he's trying to tell us. Can someone deal with him? 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also being extremely rude in edit summaries and talk page comments. I've blocked him for a couple of days and advised him to read WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. --ajn (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The responses from MichaelIsGreat (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) to friendly advice on his talk page since his block, and his constant imputations of censorship, conspiracy and skulduggery, all lead me to believe this individual is a hopeless case, beyond reform. I have taken the bull by the horns in the hope of preventing any further waste of time and emotional energy, and am indefinitely blocking MichaelIsGreat per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. Any admin who contests this indef block please reinstate Andrew Norman's last block (which was for a week) and let me know you have done so; if any non-admin objects then let me know and I undertake to reverse it myself. If no-one objects here then I will list MichaelIsGreat at Wikipedia:List of banned users in due course. Disclosure: MichaelIsGreat has accused me, as he has baselessly accused every Wikipedian who has ever interacted with him, of being dishonest and having a hidden agenda (precisely what hidden agenda is unclear). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The hidden agenda is to suppress the truth about how great the latest Bösendorfer computer piano is, of course. Will you ever be happy, brats?!! I have no objections at all to this block - having had to block him for a further week this morning for threats, abuse and general ranting about everyone conspiring against him, he seems to me to be utterly unreasonable and unlikely to change. --ajn (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

All hail the hidden agenda to write an NPOV encyclopedia. I've been called lots of things since becoming an admin, but that's a first on "brat", LOL. Thanks to everyone who helped with this. Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

About the AOL image vandal...and me

I have given up. I'm not going to revert any more AOL edits like this one. I'm going to skip right past.

The feeling of hopelessness is immense. I'm sitting there with Vandal Proof watching edits by that user go by faster than I can revert them. I don't even bother leaving warnings. He will just change his IP with the next edit anyway. I just try and reduce the damage. It's a whole IP range. I jump the hell on IRC, yelling for someone to help me but no one does. An admin finally blocks it, but I see other admins seeing the same vandalism as me, reverting the same vandalism as me, and they don't do anything. What kind of climate are we living in when a sophisticated vandal with an efficient system (3+ vandal edits every 30 seconds, or an edit every 10 seconds) wrecking havoc with our encyclopedia gets to scare off our administrators just because he uses AOL? Even when the range WAS BLOCKED, it was ONLY FOR 15 MINUTES. The vandal promptly started up again and that's when I decided to throw in the towel. This isn't just some kiddie at his school putting in "omg lol" into articles. This is a determined vandal who knows our system with its red tape and silly rules can't stop him. He has the power and he knows how to exploit it.

"But mboverload," you say, "obvious vandalism is easy to revert and it only took a few minutes even if you had to look on in horror as thousands of peoples' work was being destroyed." Well, why don't we just let stupid criminals out of prison after 15 minutes? They learned their lesson. Stores can always get their money back from insurance and it's easy to spot them with the security cameras, right? Even if that were true in real life, it still wouldn't be acceptable. People hate being violated and they want to protected.

I don't know what's wrong with me. I'm supposed to be understanding about this. But maybe I'm just the cop that realises that it's a completely hopeless battle; we will never win. Every day we go back out there and we hand out warnings and we watch as they commit more vandalism and we hand out and other warning and then we watch them do it again, all in the name of due process. Criminals don't get 4 warnings. They get TASERed. Maybe I'm burned out. Maybe I need a wikibreak. Maybe I don't care enough about all the good that comes out the the AOL IP addresses with 8 blocks. Maybe I need to calm down. Maybe I need to think of the children. Maybe I need to shut the hell up and make a sandwich. --mboverload@ 07:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

if not enough people willing to spend their time reverting this are online, the entire range should be blocked. It's not like we'll get enough worth to counterbalance the damage out of the AOL range in the meantime. AOL either needs to collaborate in preventing this, or live with their IP range blocked much of the time. dab (ᛏ) 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...tough luck I say...editing here is a priviledge.--MONGO 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious vandalism. Easy to revert and the collateral damage would be huge. Seriously, but you're the only one with this huge obsession with this vandal. I'm content with the edits being reverted. The good coming out of the AOL IP's vastly outweighs the bad, blocking that range would be more disasterous then any vandal could possibly be. Our ultimate goal is writing an encyclopedia, not being elitist towards anons and AOL in paticular. As long as those using AOL contribute towards that goal, we just need to revert the vandals. Denying millions of contributers access fundamentally diverges from the wiki philosophy. -M^ask 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When I come across more vandalised pages by accident (i.e. while not on RC patrol or looking at my watchlist), I might get behind a block on an entire ISP, but right now in my whole time reading Wikipedia I can only remember coming across three vandalised pages by accident, and I can't even remember what they were, though I do remember all but one were very obscure. Sure, if you go looking for vandalism, you will, shock horror, find lots of it, but that's not the impression the average reader will get.

I'm fairly understanding of those who block shared IPs for long periods, but people who are blocked at school can just go home - when people are blocked at home it's a major inconvenience. Roll on WP:BPP... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Any time the vandal's giving you trouble, mboverload, drop a note on my talk page, and if I'm on I'll block the range for 3 hours. I'm truly not afraid of blocking AOL one bit for as long as need be, and have blocked that range for relatively long times before (as far as I know, my blocks of this range have never once been undone), and I truly don't think that many users are that harmed by it, with a couple of exceptions for whom solutions are typically found quite quickly. I get the impression that AOL simply doesn't give a damn about abuse, and AOL users are typically quite used to getting shitty service from their ISP--they'll understand, or perhaps consider changing to a decent provider. If a few users are unable to edit from home for some time, I think it's well worth it. This vandal, and many others, are quite well aware of the effort we put into ensuring that no AOL user ever be unable to edit, and they just sit back and laugh at our wasted effort. It is absolutely absurd to expect anyone--mboverload, myself, etc.--to simply "revert and warn" this vandalism without blocking, and anyone who does not find this expectation absurd obviously has not been involved in the clean up (as mb stated, we're not dealing with the dumb schoolboy vandal here). Might I propose that we at least keep this range blocked between the hours of 5 and 15 UTC (midnight and 10am pacific time) when nobody except the few of us are available to deal with it? I, like mboverload, simply refuse to clean up this crap anymore, and why should we with that nifty block button there? By the way, we're not talking all of AOL, just the pacific coast branch. I would really like to return to editing... AmiDaniel (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post AmiDaniel, thanks. I get mad at the regular vandals but I'm fine with that in the long run. It's just these people who take advantage of an ISP that doesn't care is what makes me mad. Even madder at someone who is this smart (I have heard that he must have found a special way to get a new IP address each time, it's not the regular behavior usually). And when we block a range he can just disconnect and call another number. God...I hate dialup. Maybe I'm madder at AOL than the actual user. It's just so awful that there is a stereotype of the AOL user, and they seem to reinforce it to me every hour. Thank you =)--mboverload@ 09:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One more time: blocks of AOL should never exceed :15. The bad outweighs the good? Hmm. Let's see: yesterday I wrote two full articles with references, cleaned out some CSD's, and added to four prosody articles. I mediated the behavior of someone about to get a block, and I tried to put the brakes on some overzealous blocking on this page. Sure, I can see why you might think that the bad outweighs that tiny amount of good. This is not a debate: our policy says that you will not block AOL for longer than :15. If AmiDaniel's block hasn't been overturned, that's just luck, because, although I've not before wanted to get involved in unblocking and wheel warring, the kind of attitude I'm seeing from you people is enough to pull me off the sidelines. If what I'm saying is changing tone too many times, just remember this do not block AOL for longer than :15. Oh, and you can put your prejudice aside. Your denunciations of AOL are as well reasoned as meeting drunken sailors and concluding that all the people of a nation are hideous. If you don't know who the AOL contributors are doing any good, it's because you're vandal hunting. Geogre 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocks of AOL should be based on preventing vandalism from AOL. It should be as wide-ranging and as long as necessary to accomplish this goal. Since AOL is making it impossible to lay a narrowly-targeted block on an AOL vandal, AOL users have no reasonable expectation of not being blocked. The problem here is with AOL's conduct towards the rest of the Internet, not Wikipedia admin's conduct. AOL's randomizing proxies are a big fat "screw you" to anyone who's trying to deter vandalism, harassment, or other abuse and criminality. --FOo 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this policy which says no more than 15 minutes? WP:BLOCK doesn't mention it, the block page says "Please keep blocks in these ranges to 15 minutes or less" that isn't a never. The reality if the blocking should be proportional to the issue, in this case it appears to be bot like rapid vandalism e.g. 20+ edits per minute, in which case a range block does seem in order. If initial 15 minute blocks don't stop it then increase in length does seem appropriate. --pgk^(talk) 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, and here I thought the block page had precedence over zeal. You know why you think AOL users are a problem? You are vandal hunting. If you clean septic tanks all day, you'll be convinced that no one does anything but poop. Do you think Time Warner AOL will be harmed by your virtuous scourging of its users from Wikipedia? Do you think that the users will either gain the money or expertise necessary to switch ISP's? Do you believe that other ISP's will suddenly appear with dial-up connections in their areas? No, in fact, reverting vandals is not sufficient justification for wiping out an entire ISP. Do you feel free to ignore policy, consensus, and practice and block entire school systems? They do more damage by far. If not, then please drop the anti-corporate attitude when it means blocking innocent contributors. Geogre 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The semi-block idea sounds very interesting. Yes,something must be done about AOL vandalism, and waiting for AOL to do it seems a forlorn hope. I put my faith in the clever developers giving a software solution top priority now. Meanwhile, do you rangeblock enthusiast really know the situation of the good users being affected by the AOL blocks? And what the encyclopedia loses through that situation? Do you see, above, that the fine admin and exceptional Featured-article writer Geogre can barely edit at all nowadays? I know him, so I know his situation. I also know the equally virtuous and even more unfortunate User:WBardwin, who was invisibly pipelinked to in AmiDaniel's post above as one of "a couple of exceptions [to the rule that three-hour blocks of the whole range aren't much of a problem] for whom solutions are typically found quite quickly". Really, a solution has been found for WBardwin? No, it hasn't. His polite, resigned unblock requests still pop up on my watchlist most days. This amazingly patient editor still tries, and to a certain extent manages, to edit Wikipedia--if I were WBardwin, I would have given up long ago. Take a look at his talkpage, and click from it to his special subpage about his AOL blocks: it's horrendous. So, just by accident I know two users who are hugely impacted by the AOL blocks. This suggests to me that there are many, many more. PLease keep AOL blocks to 15 minutes or less. And PLEASE work on a software solution for the vandalism! I find the pointlessness of blocking vandals or edit warriors when they come in from AOL as frustrating as anybody. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

I don't understand why logged-in users have problems with AOL blocks. I never do, I must just be lucky. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is luck, Zoe. (Gasp! Another admin using AOL? But, above, we were told that AOL is far and away more evil for Wikipedia than good!) I've been stuck with Netscape ISP for over a year and a half. Netscape is owned by AOL, so it runs my IP through its pool. For 10 months or more, I never had collateral damage. In the past 6-8 months, though, I find myself blocked at least twice a day. Being an admin, I can get around it, but the kind of shotgun approach to vandal fighting being actually encouraged in this thread is simply ignorant. Geogre 18:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At a guess I would say it is due to not useing the AOL browser.Geni 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I use Mozilla and don't use AOL. I simply have an ISP (Netscape) that's owned by AOL. That means my IP's don't roll with every single page load, but they roll pretty darned often all the same. I don't like the practice any more than anyone else, but the answer isn't to go to scorched earth policies. We need that earth. Geogre 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record, I never meant to suggest we should block the entire AOL range for long periods. I meant to suggest that if there is an auto-redialling vandalbot run on AOL, we should block AOL for :15 without remorse, and for another :15 if it persists, and for yet another :15, and another :15, essentially amounting to a permablock for as long as the wanker continues to run his bot. dab (ᛏ) 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's tedious and laborious, but I think you're right Dab. If it's an image popper, we can certainly make the image unavailable for the duration, as well. However, I think this particular vandal knows full well that he's causing collateral damage and is, in fact, using that damage as part of his vandalism. Geogre 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the software solution easy? Give MediaWiki the range of AOL proxy server IP addresses (these are well known), and if the IP address is blocked but the user account isn't, let its edits go through. This is a sort of "semi-block" that allows registered users to edit. Also, disable autoblocker on these ranges. --Cyde↔Weys 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

The user User:Kizor has been edit warring the preserve original research at the page Male pregnancy, refusing to provide citations from notable sources or in some cases any sources what so ever.

I've corrected the tags and added {{citeneeded}} where I feel a WP:RS is lacking. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The author of this message, presumably the same person as the one with an identical posting style and focus, has not responded to three separate requests to elaborate on what he finds unacceptable, beyond repeatedly stating that it's ridiculous, nonsense, OR and the like. He seems to be ignoring the sources I supply and operating under his own, personal definition of 'notable'. He's called for aid multiple times but engaged in next to no actual dialogue with me. --Kizor 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, he apparently finds the statement that a male pregnancy would have to be an ectopic pregnancy to be unacceptable OR. An ectopic pregnancy is defined as one outside a womb. Men do not have a womb. In case that wouldn't be enough, I gave him a link where Lord Winston - one of Great Britain's prominent fertility specialists - specifically mentions this. Several days later he deleted the statement and several others with the edit summary 'rvv'. --Kizor 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, I am not the poster to whom you originally refer. A simple check with ARIN and similar sources reveals the original chap to be an American, and me to be British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

81, You're also responding to me and acting politely, so you can't be him. Sorry. Sorry. And damn; jumping the gun when my credibility is a vital issue! Here's my side of things. What I said earlier stands, except for the striked-through part - 74.136.222.198 has repeatedly edited the page to force his will through. He's answering no attempts at dialogue and accepting no version but his; communications from him have been limited to "Read this and become familiar with it WP:OR" and "ricidulous". He's snide and insulting in his few talk page messages and edit summaries. He's not elaborating on his problems beyond saying that what he doesn't agree with is nonsense, and has made no acknowledgement of the sources I've provided. There is no original research in the article, at least not by me or in the parts he's attacking and I'm defending. I gave an elaborate summary on his talk page. The sources used, Robert Winston and Snopes.com, are in the article as some of its external links. They are by no means the only sources with data of male pregnancy, but cover everything used in the article. If the page that hosts a copy of the Sunday Times article about Winston seems suspect, it's also hosted elsewhere. If the sources should be pointed out better, I'm all ears, but I'm not - repeat not - using OR. --Kizor 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The snopes link you provided appears to debunk your entire article's human component.

Not really. It examines the present state and says that it's doable, not yet practically feasible - and the Wikipedia article agrees by describing it as doubly foolhardy. Snopes.com's description of how a male pregnancy would be done corresponds to Winston's statements on the issue. The Snopes link finishes by saying that it could become reality in the future. The article and the source seem to fit nicely to me. --Kizor 11:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Male pregnancy is not even feasible at current (as stated by snopes), the article's human component is merely speculative, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

Please take this discussion back to the talk page of the article. This is not the place for content discussion between editors. Sam Vimes 11:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, we have a need for other editors to go and look at the article in question and weigh in as currently Kizor has been tailoring it to his views, it seems there is a need for other opinions on these views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

The place to go then is Wikipedia:Requests for comment (more specifically: [[10]]), since this discussion does not require administrator action, merely input which any editor can provide. Sam Vimes 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the ongoing part of the discussion to Talk:Male pregnancy, which should be much better suited for talking this out. --Kizor 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New user removing user boxed from user pages

The User:TheCooler has been removing a lot of Balkan related (Montenegro, Kosovo) political userboxes from several userpages, see his history: [11], has been unwilling to comply to stop: User Talk:TheCooler. Perhaps an Adminstrator can take appropriate action here? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Political and polemical userboxes are deprecated anyway. Good job that user! --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Woah now, we've got an admin condoning vandalism? Whether or not you agree with userboxes, no one should be going around deleting them from userpages! This matter needs a bit more serious attention, and it seems as though Tony's position needs some attention as well. Romarin 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OOh, I need re-education! Off to the gulag for me! --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its sort of suspicious that the majority of his edits seem to only consist of deleting userboxes [12], and he seems to have a lot of knowledge on Wikipedia for someone who just recently signed up a few hours ago.....--Tree Biting Conspiracy 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, he's removing "userboxes" that have already been subst:ed. Are we going on a policy of removing userpage content regardless of whether it involves any templates? (If we are, stuff like this probably ought to get axed, no?) Kirill Lokshin 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, some of the stuff he's removed isn't a userbox by any stretch of the imagination, or even meant to look like one. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts that Tony Sidaway responds so quickly and approvingly and both he and User:TheCooler have their user page redirected to their talk page could be interpreted as an indication that User:TheCooler is a sockpuppet of Tony Sidaway. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Obligatory calls to AGF aside, I can't really imagine that Tony would need a sockpuppet for this; he's had no trouble axing divisive userboxes under his own name before ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but for the avoidance of doubt I confirm that I am not the owner or operator of the account User:TheCooler. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith if someone approves of vandalism is a bit of a stretch for me :). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it is unwanted behavior according to Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. For the record, I am no fan of political userboxes, but as long as we do not have an official policy, this cannot be tolerated. Especially because the user was deleting specific political userboxes (mainly Kosovo) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And borderline disruptive. In my opinion, they aren't templates anymore, they're not transcluded. But I don't want a debate. But yes, it isn't vandalism. Sceptre 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive. It depends if he's just being bold or edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing substed boxes from user space is not vandalism? Particularly when it is repeated, and seems to be this user's primary goal? I beg to differ... Romarin 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If his primary goal is to remove material that obviously shouldn't be there in the first place, it definitely cannot be vandalism. . --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, its not vandalism, but it is still disruptive, inflammatory and unrespectful. Three reasons why any administrator should not approve of such edits. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's any of those, then it's wrong. But I'm not convinced that it is any of these things. Bold, certainly. --Tony Sidaway 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's so "bold" as to be stupid. It's ineffective, because it loses ground in the real struggle, which is convincing people that the boxes are inappropriate. It's also disruptive, because it causes disruption - it upsets people, it's inelegant, brash, boorish, bold, and unproductive. It doens't get the job done, and it appears to be a good-faith example of impatient, juvenile acting out, using a sock-puppet. Other than that, it's great. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wale oil beef hooked! You really think it's me socking, don't you? :) --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that. I think it's someone who thinks of you as a role model ;-) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It may not be you, but it is likely someone based on a new user account doing very specific edits. Your flippant dismissal of the issue shows you to be biased in a way very unbecoming to someone with your stature in the project. You as well as anyone should be concerned that this is somebody's sock who believes his edits would be likely to get his primary account blocked. --StuffOfInterest 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously this chap wouldn't have anything to fear from this administrator on that score. Indeed there seems to be a general air of approval of his exploits. Well done that user. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit that it's not completely obviously vandalism; we don't know this user's motives. But still, it is very biased, and you are showing an extreme bias as well by saying that these boxes "obviously shouldn't be there in the first place". What is your motive here? Aren't you supposed to be working towards NPOV with your adminship? Could you please explain to us why you agree with these POV, disruptive, inflammatory and unrespectful (if not vandalizing) edits? Thank you. Romarin 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Userpages are there by the grace of the project, and are not a right that people have. If content on them damages the project, then people should expect them to be edited. There is a tradition of not editing userpages of other users without good reason, but this might be construed to be a good reason. For people who want something more personalisable, Livejournal and proper webservers beckon. --Improv 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone could use Wikipedia for long and still use the Neutral point of view policy as an argument for keeping inappropriate content on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen these userboxes, and I don't have an opinion at this point as to whether or not I agree with their use. My problem is that there is no difinitive policy as of yet on whether or not they are "inappropriate", and so, I think that calling them such, and cheering on someone who is going around removing them, is a demonstration of personal bias. Romarin 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian, I am definitey personally biased against introducing partisan political declarations of this kind into Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty on this matter. romarin [talk ] 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I prefer people who admit any baises upfront. It's those who don't (in combination with AGF) that tend to be a real problem.Geni 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Geni, and yet I'm against political userboxes. I guess that's not what the issue's about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness run amok. It's not the end of the world if somebody expresses some detail about their views on something not directly related to Wikipedia on their user page. Merzbow 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeesh, there's no requirement to be NPOV/neutral about the operations of the project itself. Articles should be NPOV. But if everyone was neutral about how things should work "behind the scenes," we'd never get anything done! FreplySpang 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that somebody should depopulate Category:Opponents of Kosovo independence, and I don't know why it shouldn't be this particular editor. Jkelly 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not Spartacus, but I'm about to do it. I've done some similar things over the last few days, so a few more angry eastern Europeans after my blood won't make much difference. --ajn (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Do I just delete the category page now, too? --ajn (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just blank it and have a look there every now and then to see if someone is trying to repopulate it. Deleting or recreating a cat page doesn't do anything to the category. It's the "Category" clauses in the pages themselves that make the category. --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd already done it in solidarity with ajn. If it makes more sense to restore it, go ahead. Jkelly 23:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So you guys are volenteering to redraw all the maps if Kosovo ends up independant?Geni 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't draw for the life of me, and that wouldn't be something one would want to be off on by even a little. Jkelly 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is why there is a theoretical legit internal wikipedia reason for being oposed to Kosovo becomeing an independant state.Geni 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can never tell whether or not you are joking when you come up with these things. Jkelly 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mostly jokeing although I will conceed my view on what areas should be nation states is now slightly affected by how simple their boarders would be to draw.Geni 01:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that this is unlikely to be Tony it is obviously someone's sock-puppet. The account is also obviously being used to perform disruptive actions not sanctioned by any policy. We have a 'general philosophy', possibly even a guideline, to avoid identifying ourselves as members of a particular (non Wikipedia based) ideology... but we have a policy against going out of our way to antagonize others. Excusing harassment and promotion of bias (removing statements on just one side of the dispute) in the name of 'promoting greater harmony on Wikipedia by avoiding statements of affiliation' is as inherently absurd as it is wrong. That some here have gotten in on the action by helping to wipe out the 'Opponents of Kosovo independence' category, but not the other hundred or so user categories expressing a political position is also troubling... don't just pick on one ideology because you can get away with it. Imagine what would happen if you tried to wipe out the 'Democrat' and 'Republican' user categories and then explain why it is ok to just 'beat up on the little guy'. You can't promote greater harmony by pissing people off. That should be obvious. "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." --CBD 12:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh the old "don't delete this one unless you delete them all" thing. It's inevitable that people will be pissed off, especially if they have somehow gotten the idea that they own their userspace and can use it as a private web page. Probably better to show them earlier, rather later, that it isn't so. This minimizes both the damage to wikipedia and the damage to the naive new user's expectations. --Tony Sidaway 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's only 'inevitable' when people violate civility policy / pillar four to act in ways disrespectful of others. If you discuss issues with people fairly and reasonably they will sometimes agree to just remove the ideological statement / userbox / fancy signature / fair-use only image / whatever. Granted, they often won't, but at least then you have proceeded in a cooperative, rather than inflammatory, way. If you think the reverse serves to 'minimize damage' I'd suggest that it isn't working. --CBD 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CBDunkerson's right about it not being inevitable that you piss people off. It's actually pretty cool to get things done without pisssing people off, and it's entirely possible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank those of you who've supported my bold actions but also express my concerns about some other people who have attacked my actions and made baseless accusations of harrassment and sockpuppetry. I have no hidden agenda. Just to make this absolutely clear I removed userboxes from "all sides", that being pro-independent Kosovo or against, pro-abolishment of Republika Srpska or against, pro-Chechnya and against. In all instances, these userboxes were divisive and inflammatory, in content and intention. I quitted Wikipedia just under two years ago for this particular reason (no, I was not banned or anything and this is my only active account). I'm sorry to see that many users are still harming the project with unencyclopedic political views. I just hope my pointless comeback exercise will set the right example. I am a busy woman but I wouldn't mind taking this all the way up to Jimbo. The spirit of the law's with me. Thanks TheCooler

User:TheCooler, these userboxes are already on their way out. I agree entirely with what you want to get done, but going on the warpath is a very foolish way to do it, and if you really want to achieve your goal, you should find a way to be smarter about it. Prick up your ears, sniff the air - there's stuff going on around here, and there are right and wrong places to push to help it go on more effectively. Political categories are up for deletion right now at CfD, for example - why snip at user pages, when you can go for the heart of POV-organizing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks GTBacchus. What should we do with userfied userboxes? These won't come up as part of any category but are still there? TheCooler

I recommend patience. This is actually a mountain that needs moving, and there are good and bad ways to move mountains, but no fast ones. Jimbo said that our overall strategy is to get POV organization out of Template namespace, and then address users on a more cultural level about how they choose to present themselves on their user pages. This is because there's a bit of a cultural crisis going on here at Wikipedia right now, and some views are rather entrenched.

User Categories are another big thing to get rid of in large chunks, using CfD and building consensus. When Template space and Category space are clear of advocacy, we'll be presenting a much more consistent face when we argue that userfied userboxes are a bad idea, and by then, they'll feel even more out-of-place than they do now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is obviously not intending to work on encyclopedia and only causes disruption. I think a CheckUser should be run on him so we know who is behind this sockpuppet.  Grue  18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sense of the obvious is... tuned differently from mine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/TheCooler.  Grue  18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it sweet, Grue; that edit summary wasn't necessary. I've seen the contributions log, and I've talked with the user, and I have no reason to disbelieve what she says about being away from Wikipedia for two years, coming back to seeing the same old unencyclopedic userboxes, and going on a bit of a bender. That doesn't mean the person is only here to cause disruption - it might mean they really care about Wikipedia, and figured grabbing a shovel and being bold about an important Wikipedia issue was a good way to contribute. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There were user boxes two years ago? I must not have been paying attention. I thought this thing flared up only recently during an extended Wikibreak I took. moink 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made comments on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#POLEMICAL_AND_INFLAMMATORY_USERBOXES and Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes. TheCooler 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

TheCooler, there's a lot of backlog you may find interesting - I believe WP:T1D is a reasonable place to dive in. It's a somewhat inactive project page that was for a while, along with its talk page, a nexus of debate over userboxes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have found this: WP:UP#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" TheCooler 21:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Brandenpegg

Is building a nice personal album on his user page. I have to sleep so I will not be the one who will mark all this for speedy deletion. ackoz 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

deleted BrokenSegue 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WOT

Removed. Doesn't require the attention of an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceiling cat vandal

Somebody needs to do something about those "ceiling cat" AOL vandals who keep inserting Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg. I've blocked 152.163.0.0/16 several times, but they just didn't seem to stick. Have I used the range block suffix incorrectly? In any case, they've been doing a lot of damage recently. -- King of Hearts 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving your comment to incidents. You'll get a quicker response, and it appears from your message that this is an urgent issue.--Ikiroid 23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde blocked 152.163.100.0/24 for 3 hours at around 23:07 UTC, so it should stick now... Bornhj 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the image. Why didn't anybody do that before? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it a few times, showed it to my kids, and we all had a giggle. Was it a deletable image? If so, fine (and honestly I find it difficult to imagine that it had an encyclopedic use). If not, it could have been put into the bad images file. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove it but it had every sign of being a copyvio (user with few edits uploading an image that has serious circulation in internet pop culture).Geni 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, but adds no value to the encyclopedia, tempts the idiots to put it in articles, and is dubious copyright-wise as well. That says delete to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt that they are actually a "they", the thing that people don't quite seem to understand about AOL is that contrary to myth, AOL isn't actually filled to the brim with thousands upon thousands of vandals, there's simply a hand full of idiots, who unfortunatly get new IPs every page, so it seems like a much more prolific problem then it really is. I mean there are millions of registered users on AOL, if even 1% of them were actually vandals, AOL would be a MUCH larger problem then it really is--64.12.116.65 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL isn't actually filled to the brim with thousands upon thousands of vandals I disagree =D --mboverload@ 03:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User Googleyii

It seems that the account Googleyii (talk • contribs) is intended only for vandalism (disruption of Wikipedia, as for example a malicious AfD nomination of France, and adding of nonsense to other articles in general) as well as harassment of other editors. Why not ban this user permanently, instead of letting him or her return to cause more damage after each block expires, before someone adds another block? /Magore 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an editor who got off to a bad start editing articles about his home town and his school. He got into some wrangles about it with User:Adolphus79 and responded inappropriately, and it kind of spiralled out of control from there. I disagree that it's a vandalism-only account; more of an inexperienced and immature user who got burned and is lashing out. A friendly personal comment on his talk page might do some good; stop signs and stern warnings will only guarantee he continues along his current path. · rodii · 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? By the law of Userbox Ratios and Averages, where the likelihood of creating a valid edit is inversely proportional to the number of userboxes you have on his page, I don't really see anything good coming from this user. Not until he grows up and matures a bit out of this spoiled myspace mentality, at least. --Golbez 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't deny he's created more disruption than value in his tenure so far. But he has tried to add good information to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (see [13]) and Battle of Gettysburg. Not the highest-quality edits to be sure, but not what I would characterize as a "vandalism-only" editor either. · rodii · 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, his edits (and userboxes) betray some similarities to Griffjam aka Dormantsoviet, so who the hell knows? Maybe I'm a sucker. · rodii · 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe the question is what will happen when the current block expires. And as stated, this user has done far more to disrupt than to contribute, and although I might be wrong in my assumtion that this is a vandalism-only account (I didn't go that far back in the history of this account), that might be the only use from now on. I see no reason or gain in being lenient towards vandals, not when it's so obvious that the edits have been made in bad faith. /Magore 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jonas Salk (talk · contribs)

User is not Jonas Salk but is using his name as his/her own username in violation of username policy. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Salk died 11 years ago, is there really a concern about them mixing up? Would there be a concern if a user named himself PaulRevere? — Mike • 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems with me. I do not think that 11 years ago is a "recent death" so I am ok with the name. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Me either. It's not like he's new either. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably okay. -- Samir धर्म 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We can probably open this discussion up again should we ever get a legal notice from Zombie Salk. --InShaneee 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Salk = twice the mold of a normal zombie? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Anirudh777

Sorry for being late in reporting. See this user's conributions for all his/her edits based on huge POV. Lot of his/her edits seem to be ridiculous. See Talk:Vedic religion and other Talk pages where he shows his hatred by saying -- HINDUISM IS NAZISM --. He needs to be banned. Babub 08:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Aiman abmajid (talk · contribs)

This user uploads many images, without specifying the sources, such as Image:E5gh.gif and Image:Plaza toll.gif. He has been ignoring Orphanbot's image source notices, clearing them all without further action [14] [15], and simply removing {{no source}} templates pasted on his images' description pages [16] [17] [18]. If his images are deleted, he will simply re-upload them again (AFAIK the 2 images I mentioned have been deleted due to "no source" previously).

He has been unresponsive to notes on his user talk so far. I've dropped another note on his user talk page, but I'm not sure what actions if any need to be taken against this type of user, so I'm bringing it up here. Kimchi.sg 09:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a {{Image no source last warning}} warning. If he reupload images afterwards, I will probably give him a short warning block. Circeus 19:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor deleting other peoples comments

I posted this at AV but it was delisted and the admin apparently did not contact the user.

Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing my comments from several pages.[19][20][21][22][23][24] He keeps deleting other peoples edits despite me asking him to stop. Please review this editors behaviour.

Can somebody look into the matter, and comment on whether or not deleting comments by others in a poll is allowed. See previous question above regarding editors reframing a poll to suit their needs. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

May I thank those that looked into the repeated delketion and manipulation of polls and decided no comment was needed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the poll, you cannot change the contents after people have voted. I dont know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Your political opinions are not what the poll is about and you have no right to attempt to make it about them after people have voted. WP:POINT. If you do not like the questions then simply state you do not, do not disrupt a process to make your political point clear. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If Nescio was commenting within the text of a poll question after others had voted, that seems like a no-no to me. However, you could have moved his comments to another section rather than deleting them. Thatcher131 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both users for six hours (3RR breach on the page). I think what is happening is that the Wikipedia:WOT poll is suffering from vote stacking (see my note about it on This poll suffers from questionable vote-stacking practices). So what Nescio is doing, is placing links to the old polls on these issues, while Zer0fault objects and reverts, and Nescio reverts in turn. But Zer0fault has also removed a link within Nescio's comment on the AfD (which I have rollbacked — it is a links to an article RFC that Nescio has prepared), calling it "linkspam." This leads me to think that Zer0fault has a rather poor grasp of WP:OWN. I don't have a great deal of time to deal with this, so feel free to step in. El_C 22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

El, I haven't followed this very closely, but do you think it's a good thing that you did the block? You seem to have some involvement with that page. Arkon 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing. El_C 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Big time Vandal, just look at his talk page

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

His talk page is filled with warnings and vandal marks.

Davetron5000 14:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk just blocked him for a week, for the string of recent vandalism. --TeaDrinker 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP appears to resolve to a single user (certainly, the pattern of vandalism is the same) in Salem, Oregon, USA. Next time, this one gets 3 months. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy says a max of 1 month blocks for static IPs. Prodego ^talk 15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have sworn it was 3... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, policy needs to be changed then ... one month clearly isn't long enough for habitual offenders. --Cyde↔Weys 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is wrong then, I have rightly with community support blocked a static IP before for 24 months. --Golbez 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it means 1 month without having first received support for longer. Shall I consider this support? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not an administrator, I do lend a hand with vandalism removal from time to time and agree that 3 months is a reasonable length of time to block pathological vandals operating from addresses that have been blocked repeatedly in the past. If it turns out that there is a collateral damage issue they can send an email to OTRS, the blocking administrator, or issue an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and it will be quickly reversed. How can our blocking policy be updated? Yamaguchi先生 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion a couple of threads below, if it's habitual, and a static IP, then blocks in excess of a month are appropriate. Particularly as blocks can always be overturned later. Indefinite is not permanent. Proto///type 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bae Yong Joon and User:Fabshelly

Currently, I am discussing matters with this newly-registered user, who is rather hostile. His edits on this article, to my judgement, can be considered as vandalism, a charge which he denies. From the attitude of his messages, he has even reverted an NPOV notice (see history [25], which clearly reflects his NPOV behaviour Wikipedia:NPOV but currently he has refused to change for a better to edit in accordance to at least a near non-NPOV and wikipedian style. Unnecessary notices, such as "Information here is from his official website, byj.co.kr. Google is not a verifiabe source of information on Bae Yong Joon. " is pasted on the article, a behaviour reflected on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Last but not least, this user has been accusing me of adding false information when I have given proper citations (See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and Talk:Bae Yong Joon). Also, while communicating with me on User talk:Fabshelly, words, amounting to abusive criticism, like "cowardly" and "doesn't make you morally superior." have been used against me. I have pasted a replica on Bae's talk page.

For more information, please refer to Talk:Bae Yong Joon. Admin help on Bae Yong Joon is greatly needed and appreciated. I need admin justification and judgement to User:Fabshelly's conduct on Bae, as I am not good at manoveruing my words against him, and work out a compromise eventually. Mr Tan 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted messages to User talk:Centrx in response to Fabshelly's second time of removing the "dispute" and "cleanup" templates while he pasted up the notices. Apparently this user has strong NPOV/non-neutral feelings while editing the article, which is against wikipedia's policy. Thus admin judgement and/or dispute resolution against him is necessary to calm matters down. Mr Tan 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(Allow me to interject) Fabshelly's edits is clearly an evidence of a violation of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, a segment page of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is official policy. Thus appropriate disciplinar actions enforced by admins is essential if he continues to violate policies and guidelines imposed by wikipedia. Mr Tan 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor violating user page

Removed. Was withdrawn. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Arvatov

User:Arvatov continues his campaign [26] [27] [28] [29] of trolling, near-fascist PoV and vandalism [30], [31], [32]. I think permanent ban is in order. Duja 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although most of those edits are now quite old, two are recent and, I believe, justify a re-blocking. I am loathe to go to a permanent block (though I acknowledge it may prove necessary in the end) so have placed a 1-month block on User:Arvatov instead. --AlisonW 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I provided the old links just to establish the earlier pattern of behavior, which sadly continues. Duja 09:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

62.171.194.5

Seems to be going on a vandalism rampage today. See the Contributions page at [33] and all the notices at User_talk:62.171.194.5. As above, it might be that a permanent ban is requried -- going through and changing all these little things in so many entries is going to be a lot of work. -- Tenebrae 16:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits for that IP and also the related IPs (as per talkpage). Given that the long-term repeated warnings have had no effect on all the IPs I concur that, regrettable though it is to have an IP permablocked, there is no alternative. 62.171.194.4 - 13 and 62.171.194.36 - 45 have now been permablocked. --AlisonW 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses should not be permablocked unless they are open proxies. See WP:BLOCK. Prodego ^talk 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. An IP is never eternally owned, so it shouldn't be eternally blocked. Geogre 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a difficult problem to conclude the best response to. Each of these IPs has been used for extensive vandalism, indeed that is *all* they appear to have done. Over many months many editors have warned them and given "final" warnings with short-term blocks. As such, and unless we want to be seen to be toothless, we have no further options left but to permablock. Yes, of course, the IP allocation should be checked at intervals to ensure it hasn't changed hands so "eternal" is inherently wrong. It is a bit like someone being detained "at her Majesty's pleasure". We shall review the blocks but setting a specified period is clearly not going to solve the problem. --AlisonW 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK, which states that "For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month". Please change your blocks. Prodego ^talk 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a very selective quote from WP:BLOCK. I am sure you would agree that "should" is a fine word, but I'd point out that this isn't just about vandalism (where your brief extract is taken from) but also about the extensive and regular disruption that this range of IPs is causing to Wikipedia generally. Look in that section and you will note: "For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time." (my bold) These are static IPs and blocks of increasing length have been tried over more than a year and have clearly failed despite clear and many-times-repeated "final" warnings. The policies of Wikipedia are there to assist the project, they are not a bureaucratic straightjacket that prevents us dealing with issues however. I would really like an alternative to permablocking these addresses, but there just isn't one. We have to be realistic about that. --AlisonW 22:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, see discussion here and this related TfD. Prodego ^talk 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this, so long as each IP address has a note on providing reasons why the IP address is on a long-term / indefinite block, and the procedure to get the block rescinded if an actual contributor strays onto the IP address. Which at the moment seems unlikely, as those addresses have provided nothing but vandalism, but may change in the future. Proto///type 09:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman and legal threats.

On June 8th, User:Sussexman and User:Edchilvers had the following exchange:

*Comment Utter rubbish. GLF is not protected by the rehabilitation of offenders act and besides, the content of his Wikipedia article included a blatent falsehood in that it suggested he had been cleared of all charges on appeal. Seeing as the matter was widely reported in the national newspapers and has thus been in the public domain for some time I fail to see the harm in mentioning it as it is the truth.

- User:Edchilvers + User:Edchilvers.

• Comment: You're wrong Mr.Chilvers, as you will soon discover. Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[34]

Today, Ed Chilvers received a letter from Gregory Lauder-Frost's lawyers threatening him with legal action. Sussexman's "as you will soon discover" would be a reference to this and should be taken as a legal threat. If Sussexman is not Gregory Lauder-Frost then he is intimate enough with him to be able to pass on a legal threat. He should be banned from wikipedia until the matter is resolved and until GLF either concludes or agrees to withdraw any threat of legal action. Homey 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How would they have gotten his mailing address? Paul Cyr 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By googling "Ed Chilvers" or looking his name up in a British database. It seems from Ed Chilvers' web page that he has been the target of legal threats from Michael Keith Smith, a friend of Lauder-Frost's, in the past so it's possible Lauder-Frost already had Chilvers' contact info. Homey 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Got any proof, like a scan of the letter? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed Chilvers mentions it here[35] - he sent me excerpts of the letter after I emailed him about it.Homey 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds pretty serious. I'd recommend blocking until this can be looked into at the very least. --InShaneee 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been in a content dispute with Sussexman over Gregory Lauder-Frost so I'm not the person to implement a block. Homey 19:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Sussexman has been consistently disruptive over any attempt to include content not flattering to Lauder-Frost. William Pietri put in some tremendous work digging up newspaper reports and showed that Lauder-Frosts's conviction for theft was the single most widely reported fact about him; Sussexman and a couple of anonymous editors were determined to remove this or at least relegate it to euphemistic references. Just zis Guy you know? 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Glad you said "digging up" the dirt. Bit of agive away as to the agenda here, really. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And this post, which he intended for another user, is fairly close to a legal threat. [36]

• That's just tripe and you know it. He is just stating a fact. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly believe that User:Sussexman is Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong beliefs seem to be only legitimate on your side of the fence. Pity its wrong. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, as the person who blocked User:Lightoftheworld, probably leading Sussexman to veil his threats. Be on the look out for meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman is not Lauder-Frost. Preposterous. Sussexman has defended the vitriolic attacks made upon someone he knew years ago and liked and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For values of vitriolic which include stating in terms of studied neutrality the fact that he was convicted of a substantial theft from the health authority where he worked. As far as I can the most of the vitriol has been directed against those who attempted to fix the inaccuracy of the article, by supporters of Lauder-Frost. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Here you go raving about the pre-1992 business as though it were last week and without the full knowledge of the matter. It was illegal to post details of this. Telling people this should be taken in good faith. Instead you ban people for it. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I give my absolute support to Sussexman. I too posted information on how this cabal of smearers were breaking UK law. Any normal person would be pleased for the advice. But this lot knew what they were doing and were absolutely determined to smear GLF all over the world. Sussexman appears to be the third person they have blocked for "legal threats", yet none of them appear to actually be the person concerned and so were not in a position to threaten anyone! Is it Wikipedia policy to block out everyone whom you get sick of arguing with? 195.134.6.202 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are acting as a proxy for someone else's legal threats, I consider it substantially identical to making them yourself. Wikipedia can't prove the relationship between the Wikipedia username User:Sussexman and the real-world individual Gregory Lauder-Frost, but I believe it does not really matter. Conveying threats from another non-Wikipedia party when one is not merely a messenger but an associate and clearly involved in an on-Wikipedia effort to suppress the same information differs little in actual effect from explicitly making them yourself.

I note also that GLF and/or friends and associates were quite happy to keep a lie on the page (that GLF was acquitted of theft on appeal) but are willing to sue on extremely flimsy grounds to hide the truth. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• All rubbish, I'm afraid. The only person on "flimsy" ground on these issues seems to be you and the little gang of demonisers. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to have to inform you that I bear Gregory Lauder-Frost no personal ill will whatsoever. I don't know him, have never encountered him, and did not even know of his existence prior to your first postings on this page about it. I am, however, interested in keeping an honest historical record, concerned about an attempt to censor relevant truth, and opposed to those who seek to chill discussion and publication of facts by using dubious legal threats. A brief, half-sentence mention of Gregory Lauder-Frost's criminal conviction in 1992 - which could not be considered any kind of "youthful indiscretion" or to be prior to his public life - is not unfair to him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

HighwayCello (talk · contribs)

User:HighwayCello has engaged in personal attacks, harassment and vandalism (and possibly copyright violation), he has violated almost every policy and guidline in the entire encyclopedia. He has vandalized and attacks users, especially me, but some other users as well, and trying to gain ownership over Pokémon articles by reverting all edits that doesn't please him, harassing other users, and just doing anything that violates the policies and guidelines. He has been working hard to get other innocent users blocked from editing, by doing bad things, getting other users so angry as they do bad things back to him, sometimes just moaning at him, but sometimes other things. HighwayCello reports users, gets them blocked, using the thing they said as evidence, ignoring the fact that he got them angry, and then eventually getting them blocked. It got so serious, I had to change my username to Cute Minun (it was Iloveminun before). HighwayCello reported me as a sockpuppet, even though I had changed my account permanently. HighwayCello eventually got me blocked for what he had done. He also changed an image license HighwayCello changes an image license to something that totally does not fit the image. [37]

He eventually got me blocked for a week for everything thathe had done, and now im reporting problems using my IP address. Please reply as soon as possible. 81.153.148.8 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for block evasion. --InShaneee 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for very much, I have an exam on Friday and this is a lot. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also reset User:Iloveminun block for a further week, for further block evasion. --pgk^(talk) 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Megaman Zero (talk · contribs)

Good day, all. This user has been (for about a week now) unilaterally slashing out the "spoiler" tags from at least a hundred game-related articles. He doesn't use the talk page, and doesn't give any explanation in his summaries. His removal of the tags is wrong in all of the instances he's done it in (for example, in the Resident Evil 4 article it talks about the specific death of a main character during the course of the game), and there are elements within those storylines that a user casually reading the article might not want revealed to them without prior notice. Other users have asked him to stop repeatedly, but he hasn't listened to them, instead filing false "Request For Investigation" [38] attempts and trying to get Mongo involved in order to "get his way". So far I've managed to repair the damage that he's caused via reversion, but trying to fix everything is getting to be really, really aggravating.

As evidence, I present the articles relating to Resident Evil 0, RE1, RE2, RE3, RE: Code Veronica, RE4, as well as pages directly associated with characters in those series, including Luis Sera, Osmond Saddler, Leon S Kennedy and Bitores Mendez. 24.19.96.143 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]

This is a content dispute. Take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've been doing it for quite a bit longer than a week. -Zero^Talk 10:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott

User:Ned Scot had been repetively opposing me on a range of articles lately. I find this to be most disruptive borderlining stalking if not crossing. Examples of behaviour:

• Air template revert war
• List of Air episodes revert war
• oposing the format I introduced to Naruto episode list with uncivil comments
• Fullmetal alchemist featured list candidacy oppose
• Opposing practicaly everything I was doing on Air

--Cat out 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather trippy Dutch alternative to my username... for a sec I almost thought that I was the one being discussed here. :-) Netscott 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I actually though we were talking about you...I should read closer....name is too similar... --mboverload@ 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as a content dispute for the time being, especially since these reverts are being discussed, and are on similar topics. However, comments such as "I'm not required to follow guidelines and I don't unless I agree with them" from Cool Cat do make me a bit nervous. --InShaneee 03:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No a case of guideline enforcement. I will post a more detailed explanation of my stance on your talk page. --Cat out 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter_Snoufax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account "Peter Snoufax" is making very bizarre edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonnzy (talk • contribs)

"Wikipedia is Communism" vandal impersonator. Indef-blocked by me. Jkelly 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As was Fonnzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made the report above. Jkelly 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL denial of service vandals

seriously, stop giving them so much attention, half this page is covered with AOL themed warnings, there are now daily wheel wars over range blocks, templates, categories, etc.. all devoted to what is probably one or two vandals.. in the same sense that you would never give a troll this much attention, you wouldn't want to do the same for a vandal. Hell, isn't that the reason Willy On Wheels was deleted? The problem is that prolific vandals become like folk heros around here, with daily tall tails, and entire articles devoted to them. When you get an attention seeking vandal, this is just counter productive--64.12.116.65 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

People don't think that stopping vandalism is important enough to block and it's better to offload it to the recent changes patrol. --mboverload@ 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, blocking AOL users at random almost never stops vandalism, but at least all the colorful block summaries let as many random AOL users know how easy it is to use AOL for vandalism--64.12.116.65 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention not being able to use my account for several days at a time does cut down on the amount of time that I can run VandalProof, but hey, it's only AOL--64.12.116.65 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't block random AOL users. There has been a massive attack by a skilled user exploiting how AOL works. Your block should expire soon. If you have WiFi you can leech off one of your neighbors...not sure how much they'd like that, though =D --mboverload@ 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the opinions of both anonymous up there and mboverload. The reason we get so many AOL DoS attacks is that all AOL users are frequent victims of collateral damage and thus recognize how easy it is to get all of AOL blocked. Then the DoS vandals read our posts here and go "Wow, that's easy!" It's much like how posting Charles Manson's face on the cover of Rolling Stone and making celebrities out of every serial killer and villain makes little kids wanna grow up to be murderers. Everyone wants their fame, and it's pretty damn easy to become infamous as a vandal. Thus, I see your point that we do seem to glorify vandals, but at the same time I see mboverload's point that we can't just do nothing. Unfortunately at the moment not much can be done--until the devs come up with some clever workarounds or AOL finally does something about this, our only real solution is blocking. It's an unfortunate truth that I hope will soon change, but I'm doing my best to just not let it get to me--truth is, it's not that big of a deal, and we will find a way to deal with it. (Btw, Willy on Wheels was deleted because it was a cross-namespace redirect.) AmiDaniel (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This particular vandal edits from IP's. Most of the collateral damage comes from vandals with accounts who are at AOL. The fact that this vandal remains only an IP is a good sign that he is intending the collateral damage. Now, our folks need to stop the vandal, but a range block of the ISP won't do much good. When you block an AOL IP, you're behind the vandal and therefore on top of an innocent. Blocking the whole range would be the solution, except that, if this is a -bot, and it seems to be, from its speed, the block of the whole range would only need to be a very short time -- probably :10 or even :05 would stop the bot, unless it has been programmed to not be bothered by the block page coming up. I'm glad to see AmiDaniel backing off from some of the more severe positions, above. If we can't stop the vandal with :10 or :15 blocks, then we sort of have to lay it off on RC Patrol, as bad as that is. Ironically, if the vandal succeeded, if he managed to make Wikipedia a place with "F4RT" scribbled on each page, it would be boring to him. He only wants to pee on a clean wall. Geogre 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

if I was to write a vandalbot, I would make it reconnect everytime it encountered the block page, thus walking through my ISP's IP range as quickly as people can block it. This is pointless. The only solution to this is allowing logged-in users edit even from blocked IPs (but disallowing creation of new accounts from blocked IPs). dab (ᛏ) 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be an answer, but the down side is that it would stop our sock puppet spotting and the times when the autoblocker catches a blocked user who simply creates a new account -- not that that was ever particularly robust. Geogre 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

<smacks forehead> that's the answer!!! To make the AOL vandal stop, Wikipedia just needs to put vandalism like 'F4RT' on every page! Someone, get a developer! KWH 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean it isn't already on every page? (My point was that vandals always attack resisting targets. It gives the scriptkiddies their warm fuzzies to "win." I think those who regard us as a challenge are particularly lame.) (If we could get them to go to harder targets, it would be nice.) Geogre 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy Camper

User:Happycamper has been reverting a persons comments off talk pages. you can see complaints on User_talk:Michael D. Wolok. Please take appropriate action. Geo. 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be on par with Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming; no further action is needed. El_C 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael D. Wolok pertains to HappyCampers actions and decision to withdraw. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Creation Incident

originally posted @ WP:VP/A

My log says I created User:Red Frog, although I did not. I asked earlier about what I should do, what effects it will have on me, etc. I know who created it, so if he changes his username, will it help anything? Green caterpillar 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered on user talk page. --pgk^(talk) 06:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet of User:NoToFrauds

User Terminator III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits the same pages, has the same uncivil behavior toward User:Hamsacharya_dan (putting a photo of feces on dan's userpage), and has the same style as indefinitely blocked user NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It seems he's evading his block. 66.132.130.15 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I see some similarities, but nothing conclusive. Have comparative diffs? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is odd; User:Terminator III claims to use "sockpuppets" (actually, two IPs that trace back to the University of California at Irvine). One of these, User:128.195.111.122, was the recipient of two somewhat incivil messages (here and here) left by User:NoToFrauds, and both IPs have been tagged as suspected socks of User:Hamsacharya_dan. Yet, 66.132.130.15 (whose only contribs are here) suggests User:Terminator III is a sock of User:NoToFrauds? Something isn't working... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki user06

Wiki user06 (talk · contribs) seems to be another vandalism-only account. /Magore 07:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV, please. El_C 08:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

DoS from AOL 207.200.116.*

As reported in WP:AIV --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford

Can someone please block this user for a while so that he can cool off a bit? Just take a look at this grossly inappropriate unprovoked personal attack. AvB ÷ talk 11:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours, personal attacks (and responses to same) removed. Provoked or not, that rant was really beyond the pale. Nandesuka 11:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly was. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 11:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know what I was expecting when I clicked the link, but whatever it was, that was a lot worse. Good job on the block. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just 72 hours for that garbage? He should have been keelhauled for 3 months. - Merzbow 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like Brian might have been provoked here. But even so, that's one hell of an outburst. Remember, though, that Brian is generally a decent editor and Rdos seems intent on pursuing an agenda. I can see how assertions of this nature from a self-diagnosed autioe might be seen as groossly insulting by one who has been medically diagnosed. Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, no matter how spectacularly, I don't think a single case of exploding is punishable by 3 months' block! NPA is, one more time (with feeling), not policy in its sanctions. If the user is doing anything constructive as well, then being nasty should result in mediation and arbitration, not trampling by elephants. Send him to the time-out corner for a day, maybe, but anything more than two days for a single outburst is pushing it, if the user does constructive things as well, and this one does. Geogre 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanent deletion of malicious identifying information?

I know this can be done because I have seen it done. Basically one editor has abused the edit summary facility here in an attempt to maliciously post identifying information about me, I would very much like that permanently deleted if it is possible...no point sanctioning the user because he never comes back on the same IP twice these days. --Zeraeph 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Eugène van der Pijll 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :o) --Zeraeph 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rhotic and non-rhotic accents

Hi. Please move Rhotic and non-rhotic accents back to that title; it has been redirected to "Nonrhoticism on wheels!". It was moved by User:Y2K .. Also, the first sentence says "Please help me. I don't want to be blocked again. I am User:Hephaestos. Hephisis 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" -- Reinyday, 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's been moved. I'm going to remove Hephaestos' comment. -- Reinyday, 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also, User:Sleehw added "Wheels wheels wheels!" -- Reinyday, 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't Hephaestos. The real Hephaestos wouldn't be nearly as whiny. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What I want to know is why Curps's bot didn't block him for pagemove vandalism. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of power?

(Moved from Collapse of the World Trade Center) As a consequence of this [48] edit User:MONGO took the decision to block me for 24 hours. His motivation are explained here where he says that "my POV pushing days are numbered" and conclude the discussion threating to block me for a week if I will ever dare to revert him again. Now let's fix some points:

1. User:MONGO was not an "independent observer": he was taking part to a content dispute on the opportunity of describing the "controlled demolition theorists" as "conspiracists";
2. the dispute involved several people in both the parties as you can see looking at [49] and keeping pressing "newer edit";
3. User: MONGO was supporting a change to the old version of the article while I was supporting the old version;
4. In the block policy you can read the following paragraph:

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

So I think it's clear that User: MONGO did violate the block policy realizing an abuse of power. I ask you: what can I do to defend myself from this kind of abuses? Is there an authority that can prevent User: MONGO from behaving in this way? --Pokipsy76 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing your nonsense POV and you won't have to worry about it. Stop reverting other editors for no reason and you won't be blocked. Two other admins came to your talk page and both left you blocked, so I suppose the concensus to keep you blocked should have been obvious.--MONGO 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that User:Tom harrison could be considered to be an independent observer? However: I asked for an authority to defend myself from your threats and from what I believe to be clear violations of the block policy, can you answer about this please?--Pokipsy76 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, Mr. Harrison did, User:Pschemp did, [50] and when you wouldn't stop posting the unblock, she even protected your talk page...[51]. This commentary doesn't belong here anyway as it has nothing to do with this article.--MONGO 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Why do you keep saying the same things ignoring my questions?
2. Are you suggesting that if the block policy disagree with User:Pschemp and User:Tom harrison then it is the block policy to be wrong?
3. This commentary belongs here because it speaks about a content dispute related to this article. Probably other editors would be interested to know that taking part to a content dispute against User: MONGO's POV may result in a block, wouldn't they?
4. I would be grateful if you suggest a better place to discuss about abuses of powers by the admins?

--Pokipsy76 09:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an administrator's noticeboard, or you can file a request for comment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Administrators are not permitted to use their access to advantage themselves in a content dispute, for instance by blocking the person with whom they are disputing. The block is an unauthorized use of administrator access. --FOo 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But what can I do to defend myself and other users from these abuses?

Well, you can go to WP:ArbCom, the arbitration committee, and file a formal complaint. Which may or may not do any good, as I've yet to see ArbCom take action against an administrator for abusing an non admin editor, whether the admin violated policy or not. I have a case right now there claiming an admin violated at the very least WP:AGF with a indefinite block, and ArbCom has so far (yawn) asked if I could come up with any other violations. So I did. Silence. Similarly, I've seen people blocked by admins for violation of WP:CIVIL, but on this very page you will see an administrator label my comments as "assholery." A term which in the language has no purpose, AFAIK, other than incivility. Result, no action by anybody. So, good luck. Steve 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's like this: as soon as an admin steps in to control an edit war, they are asserted by the POV pushers to be "involved in a content dispute". If we accept that at face value, we soon run out of admins with any understanding of the issue. The loudest protests are usually fomr the most tendentious editors. Simply policing WP:NPOV is not necessarily involvement. I don't know what went on here, but there is little doubt that the people asserting the "controlled demolition" theory are conspiracy theorists and not "independent researchers". Just zis Guy you know? 21:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What evidence have you that this is the case? In the present case, we don't simply have an administrator wandering by and dealing with vandalism, then getting accused of conflict of interest. The admin in question seems to have been involved in the conflict well prior. In such a case, the accepted and respectable thing to do is to request that an uninvolved administrator investigate and take action. Nobody is claiming that a block can't result if one is appropriate. But in cases of apparent conflict of interest, admins are supposed to seek review -- not to use admin access while in conflict. --FOo 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How to identify a conspiracy theory in five easy stages:

1. It goes against the orthodox view and proposes some sinister motive
2. It is denied by all those involved; this denial is asserted as evidence supporting the theory
3. There is no credible evidence to support it; this lack of evidence is asserted as a cover-up and thus evidence to support the theory
4. An alternative, more prosaic explanation is available and generally accepted
5. Proponents reverse the burden of proof, requiring that the theory be disproved rather than proving it themselves.

I'm guessing that the "explosives" were detonated from a grassy knoll... The same five tests appear to apply to MONGO's actions as well. Just zis Guy you know? 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your (not so funny) joke on conspiracy theories shows clearly the *a priori* bias of your point of view on this case.--Pokipsy76 07:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories also violate Occam's razor immediately, as they call for multiplying causes beyond the necessary. Geogre 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The best advice I can offer is to be very calm and measured. Ask, on WP:AN (not here), for other administrators to review the situation. "Administrators" disagree with each other often enough, and there shouldn't be any special divine right to the position. You can also ask (not demand, not threaten, not accuse) MONGO to get another administrator to look in. I doubt he'd had any reluctance in doing so. However, when you come in suggesting that it's Us and Them, that the persecuted truth is being hunted to extinction by the evil cabal, etc., it's fairly offputting. Most administrators are administrators because they've been pretty carefully watched and assessed before getting the position, so there is some inherent trust there and a slightly larger benefit of the doubt, but the community is pretty quick to reverse inappropriate administrative actions. Geogre 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• No actually, MONGO pretty much blocks on sight when anyone questions him, come to think of it, he does the same thing when people agree with him--64.12.116.65 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you ask him to seek an outside point of view in this case? Again, step away from calling names. Geogre 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Then file arbitration if you can prove that slander.--MONGO 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make legal threats such as accusing a fellow editor of a crime. --FOo 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not a legal threat. Second, you appear to be applying a double standard: you feel free to insult MONGO and accuse him of abuse of power but you are unwilling for him to defend himself. Just zis Guy you know? 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(following Geogre's comment) I'd also like to encourage any adminstrator whom has a claim raised against them to be "calm and measured." I know it's irritating to be villified. But when we snap back it makes it hard to sort out the "I'm cranky because this is silly" from the "I'm cranky because I got caught out." I've yet to see an accusation that could not have been well responded to with civility and tact. I might also hope that when staging a defence, the use of actual evidence be encouraged? - brenneman ^{L} 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pokipsy76 here. MONGO, you were (and are) out of line. Calling them 'conspiracists' seems clearly derogatory and thus not 'NPOV'... which makes Pokipsy's effort to change it to 'some' or 'some independant researchers' look not unreasonable to me (despite agreeing the claims seem unlikely / far-fetched). However, let's assume for the moment that isn't the case... 'conspiracists' was a perfectly neutral, reasonable, and encyclopedic term to use and no other would do. You'd still be completely out of line. This was a content dispute between the two of you... pure and simple. Blocking someone for disagreeing with your version of what an article should say is an inexcusable violation of adminship... it shouldn't be done ever. He wasn't "trolling" as you said in the block summary or being disruptive, indeed you seem to have acted considerably more incivilly. You called it "trolling" in the block summary, but elsewhere you said it was for 'reverting you'... you can't block for that. Ever. And you certainly shouldn't be nasty and dismissive about it. Protecting someone's talk page to prevent them from requesting unblock (I realize that wasn't you) also strikes me as extremely 'not kosher'. If the request is groundless the next admin will see that... just put in comments on why you think the block is sound. --CBD 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The POV pushers that try to add nonsense to the articles related to the 9/11 events have been told repeatedly that the vast majority of their "contributions" to those article violated numerous policies. This doesn't seem to stop them. This editor I blocked routinely reverts those that support the concensus verison and yes, conspiracy theorists is what they are...they are not researchers. Simply put, and I won't apologize for this not being more civil, I will continue to block POV pushers that disrupt the discussion pages and the articles with nonsense. Two other admins responded to the unblock request and did not unblock this editor. I then moved the early parts of this conversation from an article talk page to here for all to see. It is ludicrus to assume that I was doing anything other than to ensure that the POV pushers of nonsense know that there is a limit to the level of disruption that needs to be tolerated.--MONGO 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a majority of people (including myself) agree with a characterization does not make it 'neutral point of view'. Isn't that obvious? Or should we rewrite the 'Hitler' article to say that he was a 'vile murderous bastard' because most people agree with that? That the people who argue for controlled demolition are 'conspiracy theorists' (or "conspiracists" as in the article) may well be the common view... but it ISN'T "neutral" or 'encyclopedic'. It's a deliberately derogatory presentation which should be changed to something more neutral. You say above that he has repeatedly been told that his edits "violated numerous policies". What policy did he violate by changing 'Some conspiracists say...' to 'Some say...' and/or 'Some independant researchers say...'? Edit warring? Weren't you doing that too? A policy which definitely was violated is the restriction against admins blocking those with whom they are in a content dispute. Indeed, you went so far as to say, "He's going to post an unblock request and I have told him that if he reverts me one more time, the next block will be for a week." What is that? 'If you dare to revert me I will block you for a week'? You think admins are supposed to act that way? I understand that you may be frustrated and annoyed, but that's a reason to take several steps back... not charge forward. If dealing with the craziness is starting to get to you go work on some other topic. I haven't touched political articles in months for just that reason. You say several admins approved this... well shame on them. IMO that's worse than doing it in the first place. I'm telling you that you 'crossed the line' not to get in your face, but to let you know that I think you need to get away from this for a while and reconsider your position. In my view those saying (effectively), 'yeah, admins should block people who revert their edits... we decide what is good enough for inclusion' are doing more harm to you (and Wikipedia) than my criticisms. --CBD 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that it is you that is being hotheaded. I am very familiar with this editor and I posted plenty below that clearly demostrates that he/she has edit warred over this phrasing, even though numerous other ediotrs have clearly reverted him. It is not a content dispute if he has no concensus for removing the terms conspiracy and theory. I think you should reconsider your position and recognize that two other admins saw the block for what it was...a block for vandalism.--MONGO 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon. Which of us has been saying "nonsense", "trolling", "vandalism", et cetera? What do I even have to be "hotheaded" about here? I'm trying to stop a train wreck, but it really has nothing to do with me. As to this having been "a block for vandalism". You called it a block for "trolling" in the block summary... and a block for "reverting" on Tom Harrison's edit page. Now it's vandalism? This is vandalism? Look at it. There is no way that, or any of the other links you gave in response to Geogre below, is anywhere even close to 'vandalism' as defined under Wikipedia policy. None. Please stop this. I may be alone in questioning your block, but several people have urged you to calm down / use less inflammatory wording. This wasn't vandalism. --CBD 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Was this a 3RR? Could you have just rolled them back? My point is that the block, when you're involved, gives them fuel. I don't want to advocate a revert war, of course. (And I was up on 89th E. when the towers went down. Conspiracy theorists about the tower attacks are not only inventing where plain evidence is abundant, they're also highly offensive to those of us who knew people who died.) If they're horking you off (and they are, it seems), at least hand off the blocking phase. Geogre 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it was, in my opinion, vandalism. A great many of the editors that contest terms such as conspiracy theorists may feel insulted by the wording, but they have no concensus, after many, many kb's exhausted on the discussion pages, for removing the terminology used. It was not a content dispute and Pokipsy76 seems to do some drive-by reverts.[52], removed information and templated references, again, as the last link, then spent several days arguing without concensus to alter the subheading in the same article [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. You'll notice that he has reverted numerous other editors about this same phrasing, and done so without concensus.--MONGO 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1.The original version of the article had the paragraph named "controlled demolition theories", then you and others tried repeatedly to change to "conspiracy theories", I was not the only one to oppose to this change that means that you didn't have the consensus, or if you prefer you and others "spent several days arguing without concensus to alter the subheading". Are you suggesting that you can do this while I and the other "conspiracists" can't? On what grounds? Because we are "POV pushers of nonsenses"?

2.I have been reverting just a) in cases when it was clear that there was no consensus because someone else already did a revert before or b) in cases when I did disagree with a revert of other people, so in all the cases the people that have been reverted by me didn't have the consesus.

3.There was a content (the way to call the "controlled demolition theorists") that was disputed (someone wanted to have this content in a way some other ones in another way, and me and you were between these groups), so we were involved in a content dispute.

--Pokipsy76 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute between the Mongo and Pokipsky. This is persistent tendentious editing by a few conspiracy theorists who are determined to add their speculation to every page related to 9/11, with links to videos and books. The consensus is against him, and Pokipsky's actions have long since become disruptive. Mongo's block was neccessary and appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You and MONGO were trying to add text, I and the other "conspiracists" were just trying to keep the old version. By the way what you describe is just an example of content dispute.--Pokipsy76 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongo might have been advised to get someone else to actually implement the block. The Conspiracy Theorists who are edit-warring over the insertion of small-minorty POV in all articles related to that small-minority POV, however, are not editing the encyclopedia to make it more informative, but rather to win a debate about how there is a grand conspiracy to do something. As such, Mongo is right, thought I feel he would be righter if he just asked someone else to block them indefinently for exausting the communities patience. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Block for what? MONGO has claimed this to be "trolling" and "vandalism". To me it looks like an attempt to insert NPOV wording. We don't block for that. At least... we aren't supposed to. 'They are wrong, so we get to use insulting and derogatory terms to describe them' also falls a little short of 'neutral' and 'encyclopedic' in my book. --CBD 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Opinion observed and no changes will be implemented by me. I continue to defend the known facts from POV pushing trolls as long as I have time. Your continued attempts to twist this into a content dispute and to misunderstand what the conspiracy theorists are up to, indicates to me that you should really get busy reading our policies. These are sensitive articles, and the tolerance threshold for nonsense pushing is naturally lower...just as our tolerance for the same is lower on our biographies.--MONGO 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. --CBD 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1.Yes MONGO may have been advised someone else (maybe CBD?) but he didn't and he did the block, sorry.

2.On what grounds can you speak about a "small minority POV", did you know about this: [61]?

3.I don't know any policy about blocking for supporting "small minority POVs" (assuming that I was supporting those) instead I know a policy about NPOV and about blocks, who violated those?

4.The accusation of "not editing the encyclopedia to make it more informative, but rather to win a debate" is not consistent with WP:AGF and can be redirected to people who try to push in the artcile the "official version is right" POV.

5.If the people supporting two POV are numerically the same it makes no sense to block half of the editors for "exausting the patience" of the other half, unless you find a policy to support one of the parrties.--Pokipsy76 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We block whackos trying to ruin our encyclopedia? What a novel concept! *chokes* --mboverload@ 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes!! This is the true spirit of our democratic encyclopedia!!--Pokipsy76 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal of community ban for Frater FiatLux

I propose that Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned from Wikipedia for being intentionally disruptive. Facts to follow. -Baba Louis 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Any such follow-up should be at Wikipedia:Requests for comments. Please follow our dispute resolution system. Thanks. Jkelly 17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. The RfC is here. ---Baba Louis 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo

I was called to assist on Talk:Parkinson's disease. There have been serial reverts and a possible 3RR. I left a message on the talkpage of General Tojo (talk · contribs), one of the disputants, cautioning him that abrasive rhetoric and personal attacks were not contributory.

In response this editor has now been performing random reverts on articles I have edited recently. Evidence on his talkpage.

A simple warning may be enough, but I suspect short blocks may be necessary if this behaviour persists. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lasted for 9 minutes, now refactored[62]. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A user is entitled to blank anything that's not a legitimately issued warning, even if archiving is preferred; it's still in the history. If the user edits in a disruptive fashion, however, that's another matter. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As a clarification: users in good standing are afforded the privilege of blanking stuff on their talk page. Users with, shall we say, "issues", are not afforded that same privilege. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL well, let's just say the good General does not have a monopoly on issues ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, User:PaulWicks has offered an explanation for the above edit. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On Paul Wicks' talk page, Dan reveals what he believes to be RL information about Tojo.--Anchoress 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo simply carried on messing about, doing a "half-revert" on Parkinson's disease to subvert the 3RR and threatening on the talk page to finish the job tomorrow. I have blocked him for 24h for NPA, gaming the system and general WP:DICK. He seems to be a well-known troll from Braintalk. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring aside, why has he been permitted to keep this username? Tojo was a convicted war criminal and such, after all. Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is an utterly unacceptable username. It must be changed. I dropped the user a note informing him that he must apply for a WP:CHU. As for the people who knew of this username and said nothing, I need to calm down before I'm going to say something I'll regret. Shameful. El_C 10:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See Hideki Tojo for details. The response to El C's request has been more trolling. I sense civility burnout. JFW | T@lk 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely and protected the talk page. His responses were totally unacceptable. El_C 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has a name that nobody has ever previously objected to. They are notified that their user name must be changed. Before the warning period even expires that person is banned permanently. It is obvious from the above, that ElC personally disliked the name and banned as soon as possible based on ElC's personal dislike of the name (*This is an utterly unacceptable username. It must be changed). Is that actually in the Wikipedia rules, because it appears that ElC is abusing them based on ElC's own personal likes and dislikes rather than properly implemeted procedure. It also appears to be in breach of the requirement to give proper notice of banning and the reasons. Is it right some Administrators exceed regulations based on their own personal bias.

Much of this discussion is based on what JFW has written. He himself was criticised by an Administrator for the excesses and inconsistencies of his actions. So why have decisions taken notice of what he has written when he himself was shown to be at fault ? Why also is he allowed to get away with personal attacks ("a well-known troll from Braintalk"), especially when discussions elsewhere of this personal attack showed that the personal attack had no factual basis ?

Are Administrators allowed to abuse or disregard the regulations as ElC and JFW have done ? --Jonee G. Ralto 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Jonee G. Ralto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely for serving as a proxy for User:General Tojo . El_C 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, didn't you tell that user to get a new name? Jkelly 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I did, but that was before the "racism" and "arrogance" diatribes. El_C 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Jkelly 22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. A quick scan of WP:U shows several rules which would forbid the use of username "General Tojo". The username was, as El C said, utterly unacceptable. Kasreyn 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ElC has just proven his intolerance and inability to rebut his abuse of power. If he can't answer somebody he tries to shut them up. He has also just proven that he is a liar. Nowhere during the discussions was General Tojo racist as he has deceitfully claimed in order to try to justify his misconduct. This can be fully verified in the correspondence. So the excuses for his misconduct do not stand up to scrutiny. Also, General Tojo, who I know very very well, is actually a member of an anti racist organistation, thereby making a mockery of what constitutes libel. Is libel allowed on Wikipedia ? Arrogance is such a vague term - deliberately vague on his part so that it cannot be properly assessed. He himself has shown that he is remarkably arrogant. He was completely unable to rebut any of the criticisms of his abuses of power and instead rushed to a permanent banning. Do what he says - he won't and can't explain himself - or he'll ban you even if his actions are in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. He is an Administrator of the worst kind. --El Corrupt 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, indefinitely blocked. El_C 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Another "abuse of power" El_C threatened me with a final warning not to revert comments that he erased on my own talk page. User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Somewhat_involving_Norman_Coleman_.3B.29 Its like a dog, El_C does it cause he can. Travb (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I take exception to that personal attack and distrotion. I removed Jonee G. Ralto's very first —stalking— edit. Travb does not bother to review the facts and is too quick to assume bad faith. El_C 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Travb, you need to tone down your language and take an AGF pill. If you have a problem with another editor's actions or judgment, fine, talk it out calmly: communication and collaboration are key here on Wikipedia. You don't seem to be getting it. Your confrontational and accusatory tone is the exact opposite of resolving disputes. Dmcdevit·t 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

TELL THE WIKITRUTH! Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I gotta admitt, the fact he was allowed to keep that username for so long is really getting to me. El_C 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

El_C has here blatantly lied by claiming that he banned a member for racism (a member, who incidentally is a member of an anti-racist organisation). He has been completely unable to rebut that fact. He instead dispensed with all of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures by banning a member solely because of his personal interests. He now admits above that it was because the name annoyed him. This is because El_C is a lecturer in Japanese history, and it was a Japanese military name that he objected to. Somebody who abuses Wikipedia, blatantly lies about his reasons in order to cover them up, and bases his own actions solely on his own needs and prejudices is not fit to be an administrator. As can be seen above, when faced with criticism he tries to deflect the criticism by arrogantly criticisng the critic. He himself should be banned. ... added in two edits on 23 June by 88.106.150.206

If you think he should be banned, then note that banning is a step beyond de-sysopping, so follow the advice conspicuously given at the top of this very page. Wherever you write your complaint, note that putting the whole thing in boldface won't make it more persuasive; it will just make you look like a blowhard and also remarkably like the late "General Tojo". But if that's the impression you want to make, fine. Hoary 10:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, User:General Tojo only writes in bold text (see his talk page). El_C 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceiling cat vandal: 2!

It seems we have a return of the ceiling cat vandal, this time in the 152.163.100.* range. Just thought everyone would like to know that. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He/she is also vandalizing from the 207.200.116.* range again as well. -Big Smooth 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been reverting a ton of this in the last few minutes. I'd suggest blocking the range for a few minutes. --Alphachimp ^talk 02:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 152.163.100.0/24 for 15 minutes. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I was so angry, above. This is how to handle the situation, exactly, as those are (sigh) the AOL ranges. I even have a sneaking sensation that the vandal operates at relatively predictable times. I wish AOL didn't do things this way, but I also wish Microsoft weren't evil. Geogre 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Anger means you're passionate about protecting wikipedia. --mboverload@ 03:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we block AOL for :15 in response to an AOL vandal? (Half-serious, but vandals seem to jump ranges.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User to watch.

Not sure where to post this, but User:Naveen Sankar had an infobox on his user page, which falsely claimed him to be an administrator. I removed it. Based on editing history, I suspect that this user and User:Aanand Pranav Sharma are the same person, and that the same person also uses many other usernames and IP addresses (e.g. User:Wiki Administrator of Physics and User:Austin Maxwell.) Amusingly, the user pages of the first two accounts I listed seem to have based their opening paragraph on the one from my own user page.--Srleffler 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I had a similar thing with User:Notanerd, which copied my user page in whole, and the talk page of another user.--Pharos 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Request blocking for User:Onestone

This user has been involved in a number of controversies and I now request that he/she be blocked for the following three reasons: A) They engage in blanking and vandalism (example example2 B)They engage in personal attack on talk pages example C) They have removed allegations of vandalism and other things on the now blocked Moderator3000. Which makes me think they could be a sockpuppet of Moderator. example Thank-you. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Twenty-four hr block, for now. El_C 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Office Space

I'm having a slight disagreement with Leflyman (talk · contribs) at Office Space. Per provision 3 of WP:V and also Jimbo's comments therein, I removed some unsourced fan trivias and cite-tagged a couple of others. Leflyman has twice reverted me, the second with the edit summary "revert unwarranted deletions". I've pointed out the relevant policy on the article talk page and left a couple of (thus far unanswered) messages on his talk page. What to do? Deizio talk 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems we've come to an agreement. Deizio talk 01:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not really necessary to rush to the notice board for minor disputes over verifiability of trivia. As noted at WP:AN, "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour..."--Leflyman^Talk 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Biff_loman9 has been blocked indefinitely

I just blocked Biff loman9 indefinitely. This started as a personal attack case, so I blocked him for 24 hours. Almost immediately, he started using socks to get around the block. So I blocked him for 3 days. So then we got this, we went up to 9 days. And then he pledged to continue using socks. So I blocked him indefinitely. And this is just a small sample. All of the contributions of 67.71.143.54, 67.71.142.157 and a bunch of other IPs in the 67.71.143.* and 67.71.142.* ranges. I ask that others watchlist Thanos for sure. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The user in question just kept on trolling. The block is entirely legitimate given the circumstances, in my opinion -- Samir धर्म 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He uses a dynamic IP so stopping him is going to be a challenge. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:A Sister and a Lover

A Sister and a Lover (talk · contribs · logs) I'm concerned by this username and the edit summaries to some articles. Yanksox ^(talk) 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Me thinks this could be related to Incestuous amour (talk · contribs · logs), blocked indef, who edited these pages above. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries are telling and sway the balance to indef block in my opinion -- Samir धर्म 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's him. Note the null edits, only changing like 1 space. --Rory096 07:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL Range block

Although I have no objections to raising blocks above 15 minutes for persistant AOL vandalism, the current block of 1 week [63] seems extreme. Since I can't find any mention of this 1 week block I am loathe to remove it without knowing what escalation in problems caused it. And as I am not going to be around I can't unblock and monitor it. Can someone look into this. --pgk^(talk) 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Already unblocked by Dmcdevit. If this was for the Ceiling cat dude, there's no need to block for a week, he's constantly changing ranges. (Oddly he usually waits the 15 minutes until the block expires, though.) --Rory096 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am off to bed, but I'd appreciate it if someone could watch User talk:WBardwin and make sure he's able to edit again. Range blocking AOL for any length of time is a seriously silly idea which will always prevent valuable contributors from editing. Dmcdevit·t 08:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever blocked for a week was way out of line. Vandalism is bad. Contributors are better. Geogre 13:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been times where I have been forced to range block an AOL range, though I only do it for 15 minutes (usually makes them stop) and only in an emergency. That time it was a person creating talkpages of pornographic spam, while constantly switching IPs. 1 week is excessive though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopediabaxter and Reecenelson sockpuppets

This edit together with the vandalism on William Clarke College suggests to me Encyclopediabaxter (talk · contribs) and Reecenelson (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of each other and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. Is a checkuser to find any as of yet undiscovered vandalism by other accounts from their IP appropriate? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi. user:Nagara373 is persistently vandalising pages. User also seems to have an IP sockpuppet, although I'm not sure. Would welcome intervention. --Dweller 11:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've dropped a welcome template on his talk and tried to explain his information was inappropriate. Hopefully this gets the message across. He doesn't seem particularly malicious, just newbie-ish. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nagara373 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to heed any of the requests and warnings people have been posting to him and he keeps adding the same information over and over again (some of it copyrighted, some of it totally irrelevant to the article). I've now blocked him for 24 hours in the hope of getting his attention. My block message on his talk page invites him to discuss with others and asks him to read the messages on his talk page as well as the welcome message. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanent deletion of malicious identifying information - AGAIN

For the second time one editor has abused the edit summary facility here in an attempt to maliciously post identifying information about me, I would very much like that permanently deleted...no point sanctioning the user because he never comes back on the same IP twice these days see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Samvak(2nd). Thanks in anticipation. --Zeraeph 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Note that the anonymous editor seems to come from a narrow IP range, so perhaps an IP range block is in order. I'm not too familiar with that, though, so I will leave that to someone else. Eugène van der Pijll 13:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And once again thanks, for such a swift response --Zeraeph 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Constantine Conspiracy...Doc/Ril

I seem to have entered theAuthentic Matthew mess! I used http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AU/AUT/Authentic_Matthew/ (a big mistake)! I am not able to defend myself against DocUser:-Ril- ! Would an admin please look into this very bad situation --MeBee 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• What the hell are you talking about?--64.12.116.65 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • -Ril- (talk · contribs) hasn't posted on Wikipedia since being banned in March. In the last three weeks, Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) has a total of one post of one sentence. A little hard to see how they can be attacking you. Fan1967 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the subject of a current checkuser request. Thatcher131 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL [[Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg]] vandal

This vandal is back on User:207.200.116.0/24 range. As reported in WP:AIV --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone with appropriate rights just add Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg to MediaWiki:Bad image list? 68.17.14.126 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Added. I don't know if that'll stop the vandalism, but I'm willing to give it a try. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. He'll just use another image, and we won't be able to track it. --Rory096 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Will stop. Cleaning up vandalism isn't easy, but that hsouldn't stop us from doing what is needed. Andthe image will be gone in 2 days anyway, so the point is moot. -- Drini 14:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

blocked, i.e. vandalism

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO EDIT ANY ARTICLE OR PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA, NOR HAVE I EVER VANDALIZED ANY ARTICLE OR PAGE. I HAVE BEEN A READER ONLY. I ALWAYS LOG IN BEFORE LOOKING UP ANY ARTICLE, AND YET I AM CONSTANTLY RECEIVING ACCUSATORY MESSAGES, AND AM AT PRESENT BLOCKED - WHICH I SUPPOSE DOESN'T MATTER SINCE I HAVE NO DESIRE TO EDIT ANYTHING. BUT IT IS ANNOYING NONETHELESS. ANY SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE APPRECIATED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShagT@aol.com (talk • contribs)

I've left a note for User:ShagT@aol.com, who is obviously an AOL user, pointing to Wikipedia:Advice for AOL users. FreplySpang 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First suggestion, please don't TYPE IN ALL CAPS, this is considered "shouting". Second suggestion, cancel your AOL (be prepared to spend 45 minutes on the phone as they attempt to deflect the request in every way possible) and get a real Internet Service Provider. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Third suggestion: don't patronise people! :) As it happens, in the UK AOL are one of the few companies to offer unmetered (unlimited) broadband on a British Telecom line making them a good choice for a lot of technically savvy users! It's generally people who think they know the score but who actually know very little that make the tired old AOL crack.

Anyway: just a note to say, this thread has been answered at User talk:ShagT@aol.com. --kingboyk 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am one of a massive handful of people who believe AOL blows—even moreso now that I've dealt with some of the messes from an administrative standpoint. Calling someone an idiot (or the like) for using AOL would patronize; suggesting they get a real ISP is a deserved opinion. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

UK AOL? Isn't that a contradiction? --Rory096 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get into that. My point is that being "superior" doesn't help. I'm surprised he wasn't told to switch to Linux and Firefox at the same time! :) --kingboyk 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (for the record: non-AOL user, has a Linux box with a handrolled kernel, uses Firefox despite its memory bloat)

So you didn't use a makisu on that kernel? ;) Syrthiss 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Demon, whom I use, also have unmetred access, and they aren't shit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

a loosely related question, why on earth do people see "you are blocked" messages before they even attempt to edit? It unnerves and angers readers for nothing. Block notices should only come up at the time a user attempts to do an edit, since, duh, they are blocked from editing. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't see the blocked message until you edit (except for talk messages, like test5, of course). What do you mean? --Rory096 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You do if you follow a red link, which of course is technically trying to edit it... --pgk^(talk) 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mystery not mysterious: If the user is an IP, or even if he isn't -- if he merely doesn't have "remember me on this computer" checked -- when he first gets to Wikipedia, he'll have "You have messages" lit up. When he clicks on that, he'll see "You are blocked, you nasty thing, you." The block message is directed at the IP, but, if he doesn't know that the IP is just one among thousands at AOL and that it's not directed at his user name, he could, before logging in, get the impression that it was directed at him. Given this user's, and many others', for that matter, technical expertise (and people who aren't good with computers may well be architects and entomologists and other highly intelligent, trained, and valuable persons who could crush the computer nerds making fun of them), it's quite possible for him to have that misunderstanding. Geogre 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User 213.232.79.149

There are multiple warnings and block messages on this users talk page. (I hope this is the correct place to put this note up) Again, this morning the user vandalized another page. This time another User's page. Not sure what is done to mulitple offenders but will place here to find out! Lsjzl 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 2 months (previous 1-month block failed to get the message over). In the future, please take these to WP:AIV. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass category creation by Imthehappywanderer

In the last 2 days or so, Imthehappywanderer (talk · contribs) has created over 150 new categories. I don't know if that's a problem or not but I've never seen that kind of behavior before and it looks odd. New account too, about 14 days old. Thatcher131 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment See the user's talk page as well. Multiple other users have left comments on either recreated categories (previous deletes) or circular categories. Lsjzl 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy wanting to have it his wayyy

Mywayyy (talk · contribs) was blocked tonight for a massive revert war on multiple articles, removing the Turkish placenames from geographical articles about Greece (Kalymnos, Kos, Samos Island, Simi, Alexandroupoli and others). AN/3 report here: [64]. Now back continuing reverting under several anonymous IPs from the 88.218.*.* range:

• 88.218.55.223 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.46.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.42.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.37.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.50.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.43.178 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Can we have a range-block, and/or extension of block on the main account? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you run a WHOIS to see where the IP's resolve? If the guy is using a public library, kiosk, or school, we may have to be pretty delicate with a range block. Geogre 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now I'm having difficulties using the WHOIS. The WHOIS link in the checkip template above isn't resulting in anthing, and that in my popups has mysteriously vanished :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[65] - It's an ISP in Athens, Greece. 88.218.32.0 - 88.218.63.255 . —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Or 88.218.32.0/19. Saves space! Will (message me!) 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-static, then? I'd urge caution on any extended range blocks, but 24 hr can be a good starting point, and then we need to be very alert to collateral complaints. (Of course, if 24 hr goes by without collateral damage and the person resumes after that, going for a week would be logical. These nomenclature wars never end well.) Geogre 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Athens? I got Thessaloniki... Anyways, I listed the IPs at WP:RFCU. —Khoikhoi 21:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I half expect Essjay over there is going to tell us that this is one of the obvious cases he refuses to check. But thanks for taking the trouble! Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please guys, do something, he's still on it ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Manipulating RFC

I already posted a complaint regarding the blatant manipulation of a poll. Nobody responded. The RFC I started was deleted, after restoring it the same editor is altering that RFC.[66][67][68] Can somebody please interven, since when I deal with this vandalism I get blocked! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a RFC first of all, I have told you that numerous times. Second you are attempting to classify everyone vote on a semi-related poll to fit your interpretation. I removed your commentary on what you feel those people were saying with their votes and added the vote count + the questions. Which is more appropriate then you summarizing what you think those 10 people were saying into 1 sentence. You also removed the comments I added to that poll when you first completely misrepresented what was even being asked in the poll. The polls are about infoboxes not about the general question of if the WOT and War in Iraq are related, no matter how much you attempt to slant it to be about that. And stop posting your NPA / Vandalism tags on my page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You also removed my comments from it [69] You did not want to mention that did you? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is then me being called a zealot. [70] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How can this not be a RFC when it is filed as such? Please somebody interven. This is ridiculous, this user is gaming the system, deleting every comment contrary to his political view in a RFC and I simply do not know what to do next. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a straw poll ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That right there is the problem with this user "contrary to his political view". Your political opinion does not belong on Wikipedia. NPOV. My political opinion is not what can be supported by facts, and so I do not force it on others. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If political view is not important than you sure3ly do not object on any RFC trying to ascertain the facts. Do tell why you nevertheless feel the need to rewrite the RFC to suit your political view. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So, your complaint is that User:Zer0faults has been deleting your comments from Talk:Iraq War, thus: [71], claiming that they are "a straw poll"? Is that the issue? Deleting of other's comments from an article's talk page is almost never acceptable. FeloniousMonk 16:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is why I post it on AV and here. Again Zero did the same several days ago (see history for my comments on it on this page) and got away with it since nobody feels it needs intervention. Interestingly I got blocked for 3RR when I restored my comments at that time. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, looking over the Usertalk page of Zer0faults, here and here, it appears he has an longstanding and ongoing personal grudge against you. Viewed in that light his actions at Talk:Iraq War are petty harassment. That needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at Nomens page and see people asking him to participate instead of reverting? Did you look at what he was adding in? a misrepresentation of peoples votes in a poll. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

His petty comments on my person I have no problem with. Some people never grow up. However, the repeated removal and alterations of my comments I do object to. Al I ask is for somebody to step in and stop his vandalsim. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

removed duplicate

He has now been warned by FeloniousMonk. I think further "harassment" actions will warrant test warnings, and a block when he reaches test3 or test4 and still continues the same behaviour. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but how dare you take his side simply because I remove NPA tags he puts on my user page. This woe is me act also involves him removing my comments from Iraq War talk page. Did anyone look into that before making a judgement? Did anyone look into his vandalism of WP:WOT? I highly doubt it, perhaps the admins here should research all points before making decissions based on his ability to put tags on my userpage as harrassment. This user also calls me a zealot and I get accused of having a grudge? Disgusting. Did either of you even look up his talk page and see people attempting to discuss the issue with him? He constantly ignores you and just reverts and I am harrassing, he violated NPA by callnig me a zealot, did he recieve a warning? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore his comment "Some people never grow up" on this very page is a violation of NPA. Yet noone wants to point that out I see. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking anyone's side, but if I were to, I can do without these indignant "how dare you" comments. I'm just responding to what FeloniousMonk said. Well, I suppose if you want to get technical, I am taking FeloniousMonk's side, because I trust his judgement, and he has looked into this case. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This isnt about Felonius, its about Nomen, and he insulted me right on this page, yet no warnnig is being issued to him for 2 violations of NPA. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is making personal attacks, and someone else agrees, then someone will warn him too. If others don't judge that he is making personal attacks, then he won't. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He called me zealot, he just said "some users dont grow up". If I said this to you, would you not see it as a personal attack? If you are an admin then you can issue a warning, also another user has already complained about the zealot comment on Felonius's page. I do not see how I can have a grudge against someone, if they are the ones insulting me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to cease participation in this discussion as it seems its obvious that nothing is going to get done about his personal attacks, and furthermore I am sure if I did as I am allowed, and placed a NPA tag on his page for them. I will be seen as harrassing him. I am tempted to say lots but, WP:POINT prevents me.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Justwant to mention that the "RFC" nomen is insisting about appears to be this: [72]

Which is in violation of posting a RFC as its stating a position, its even villifying the other side. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you admit it is a RFC and nobody has corrected what you perceive as incorrectly desribing the subject, I think we can conclude this debate. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you even listening to each other? This supposed poll on the "war on terror" at Talk:Iraq War contains over 11,000 words posted in less than 36 hours, more than 90% by Nescio and Zer0faults. Stephen King writes less than that daily. You are both obviously immovable in your opinions, and no one else is willing to step into your fever swamp to offer an outside view because the atmosphere is so acrimonious. Tagging a person's talk page with personal attack warnings when he is an obvious established user is lazy and rude, and in the context of an ongoing content debate, obnoxious and thoroughly unhelpful. But you might as well argue about each other's behavior, because you're obviously not going to change each other's mind on the issue. Just don't come running to ANI any more like a coupe of eight year olds (he touched me! she touched me first! he's making faces at me!).

This is only the latest in a series of political articles you two have been fighting over, and the fifth or tenth time one of you has come running to ANI. I'm surprised no one has yet thought of filing an RFAR against both of you to get you both banned from political articles altogether. (Maybe Arbcom will see that one of you is clearly "right" -- but I doubt it.) Wikipedia is not a blog or a usenet newsgroup. Stop editing political articles, even if it means swallowing your pride and letting the other one "win." Find some way of dealing with each other before a solution gets imposed on you that you may like even less. Thatcher131 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was very strongly suggesting these guys file an RFC on the issues, but they shrugged that suggestion off, preferring instead to just yell at each other across various talk pages and noticeboards. If they won't take the suggestions to elevate this to RFC or RFAR, someone is going to have to do it for them, because the status quo is clearly unproductive, and the only people getting anything out of it are these two, who seem to enjoy arguing immensely. --Cyde↔Weys 18:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are absolutely right. That is why I filed the RFC. However, what do you suppose we do when that RFC gets deleted, and when I restore it somebody starts rewriting the criteria? I was only trying to get the suggested RFC from being deleted. But I will take your advise and remove myself from the article since clearly even a RFC is either not allowed or manipulated by some. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Stop it already with the woe is me. I am not responding to you anymore after this. Participate wherever you want so you can stop bemoaning persecution. I will not respond to your comments or anything you do anymore, and I hope you cand ot he same for me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • yself and another user have been attempting to get Nomen to talk to us about reaching a middleground, much like we did with Kizzle and was able to satisfy what they felt was wrong with the War on Terror title, they have since voted in favor of it, with a condition attached that it be put in quotation marks. However Nomen does not respond to other users attempting to work a middleground or even asking what would convince him otherwise. This is evident by his own talk page, and the fact that he just cahnged Mrdthree's vote on the poll he is creating. I not dealing with this user anymore, as he runs to AN/I when noone wants to participate in his poll. Especially when that poll calls for anyone who agree's that Iraq is part of the WOT to also state they do so regardless of evidence and are being unobjectionable. Anyone else see a POV problem with a person having to agree on the basis they do it withuot having any facts support them? I am sure he will see the lack of votes in that category as a win on his side however. As I said I am done, because his tactics to attempt to push his POV is leading to me getting in trouble while he says things in this very section about "Some people never grow up" and calls me a zealot without punishment. I as of this moment will no longer address this user. The end. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

vandalism - assistance required. I have just try to clean up this overlong article by removing DUPLICATED information (info that is included in the infobox) and some irrelvant trivia. I have also reorganized by the info box by breaking it down into admin and geography. I believe all these are reasonable edits and within Wiki guidelines but have all bene reverted by what can only be described as a possessive editor. I wholeheartedly believe my edits improve the article and would welcome intervention. I have been accused of being a "sock puppet" by a person who seemingly reverts every single edit not made by him user:Jhamez84. Assitance would be appreciated. Thankyou. Filmfan1971 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is a revenge attack. This user is a (5th) sock puppet (in so many days) of banned user User:Argol136. Please check the Shaw and Crompton edit history and my contributions.

Additionally, I will be presenting this IP address for an investigation for sock puppetry, and the Shaw and Crompton article is currently semi-protected because of this users constant targetting of the article. If an admin would indeed like to message me about this, please feel free. Jhamez84 18:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Burch

crockspot (talk · contribs) has been using an off-site forum to organize a disruption of wikipedia regarding user:Ben Burch and the articles about him. They seem to hate him. Here's the link to the forum post. I'm not exactly sure what the point is but apparently crockspot wants to keep an article on Ben Burch and another user is going to oppose him so they can "Make it look realistic." Very strange.

Could someone leave a message on Crock's page warning him of this kind of behavior? ---J.S (t|c) 16:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help in massive deletion needed

Imthehappywanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created quite a few circular categories. I started deleting them and then noticed there were more than THOUSAND created during 6 hours! Looks like he was running a bot. I blocked him for a while.

Now I need help in undoing his work. If someone of admins has some one-click tools or some spare time, please help. `'mikka (t) 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suprised you haven't indef blocked them..--Andeh 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He had useful edits before. Could have been a honest mistake. If he will not answer in 24h, indefinite it will go. `'mikka (t) 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand here. How did he just create them, but there are already articles in these categories? Am I cleared to delete the ones where he is the only contributor, even tho[ugh there are articles populating the categories? Also, the user has been blocked indef for running a vandal bot.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. Some editors already noticed some of his creations and properly recategoized them. So we cannot just run an anti-bot. Lots of manual work.

These were redlinked categories. YOu don't need a category to exist to put an article into it. You may just type in an article [[Category:bla bla bla]] and you got it. `'mikka (t) 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to another part of WP:AIV as the vandal has been blocked. And it's just a clean up job needed.--Andeh 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Try adding {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/sandbox.js}} one-click delete category js script. AndyZ 16:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted my 350+ categories. Who is next?pschemp | talk 04:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They are all gone now. How about in the future we keep an eye on this type of thing? pschemp | talk 05:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I looked at the contribs earlier, looked at a few categories, thought about deleting them, but wasn't quite sure from what I saw, and from reading here, what exactly needed doing, so I didn't do anything. Glad you and others were able to suss out what was needful. What are the symptoms to watch for going forward, do you think? ++Lar: t/c 05:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversion judgement

I often run into a problem when reverting vandalism and blanking. I see things like this, where an anon removes controversial, yet unsourced information. What should I do? Was it right of them to remove this unsourced and possibly biased info, or should I revert it and start a consensus on the talkpage?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's a case-by-case thing... in this case, the info is extremely derogatory towards left-handers, so I support it being deleted until it can be properly sourced. - Merzbow 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star

Editor has had a long history of revert warring, conflicts and attacks on other users, mostly centered around the edit summaries and talk pages of Majin Buu and re-direct Buu. Seems to be campaigning to be banned now, with baiting and calling to be suspended from the site (though this is not the first time he's done so). Voice of Treason 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=59940184&oldid=59939830
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majin_Buu&diff=prev&oldid=59940646
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60007491&oldid=60003026
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60018837&oldid=60016720

Wiki-star seems to have claimed ownership of the article as he reverts to his previous versions ignoring the comments left by other users and the consensus already formed, claiming that he cares "greatly about this article, and will be damned if i let another voilator ruin such a wonderful article". Voice of Treason, Isopropyl, Daishokaioshin, Onikage725, Zarbon, Darkwarriorblake, Papacha, Orion Minor, and I have all once again made attempts to discuss this issue with him but to no avail.-3bulletproof16 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the page to my watchlist and I will monitor it for his changes. --mboverload@ 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star has been larger than life, in a bad way, since his first edits on Wikipedia--take a look at his early edits to the help desk, where he made pretentious speeches about how much he was going to bring to Wikipedia and bridled at any suggestion he might moderate his, um, idiosyncratic posting style. Nothing wrong with confidence, but he crossed the line into brashness and all his edits since then have been of a pattern--he has an idea and our job is to help him implement it. He is impervious to suggestions on any subject and seems to never give up, as far as I can see. A frustrating user whose style makes the Wikipedia experience worse for anyone who encounters him. Thank god he's fixated on Buu, but too bad for the folks there who have had to deal with him. · rodii · 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

His posting style as a new editor isn't that weird. It seems that he was writing as if he was under the impression that wikipedia was a small, workaholic community that expected him to get a move on. Many new users act that way. I gather that you are under the impression that he thought he could bug everyone about his problems and be proud about it, but in reality most people are scared about being expelled from the community and they make these promises so as not to lose others' hopes in them. It isn't fair to bite a latebloomer who needs help getting started. If this user has trouble navigating Wikipedia, perhaps you should help him instead of trying to ignore him.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Noone has attacked him for being new. Heck, I'm relatively new myself. People who have tried to offer him help are ignored or insulted. When people tried to help him with his format on talk pages, he responded that he could do whatever he wants. When people engage him in discussion about proposed edits he has stated that he "gives everyone two chances" to basically see his point of view. Failure to comply with his issues earns you his disrespect and he either ignores or berates you. When everyone disagrees with him, he begins his "endless reverting" as he puts it while declaring that the only way to stop him is to ban him. This isn't simple newcomer ignorance. This is flat out arrogance, and quite possibly some form of psychosis. Onikage725 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive undo of a vicious bot: hands needed

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Help_in_massive_deletion_needed. `'mikka (t) 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• or, you know, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_in_massive_deletion_needed.--64.12.116.65 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pnatt again, abusing his talk page for soapboxing

Pnatt is currently blocked until mid-July. His talk page was protected (by me) for repeated abuse of {{unblock}}, and was recently unprotected (not by me) after promises to stop. See [73]. He's now chosen to use his talk page to start a "USA Sucks Petition". [74] Quote: "I've made a petition where people can express their resentment towards the United States of America. America sucks because:" - and an expanding list follows, containing various gems, including "They can't even spell "colour" correctly" - Pnatt's blocks relate to edit warring over regional spelling variations, and some editors have claimed that the current block is over the top and that this time (that's the seventh time, counting fans) he'll stop for real if someone will only unblock him. The above gives me reason for doubt.

Obviously, that needs wiping from the page, and maybe this sub-Fark.com bullshit exhausts the last vestige of community patience that remains. But some other rouge admin can do this, not so much because I'm too involved, but because I'm tired of being the evil inquisitor unjustly burning the innocent martyr to the cause of the letter 'U' (see above link) and it's someone else's turn. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it and pointed him to WP:NOT --pgk^(talk) 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well he removed my comments and restored an updated version of his list, so I've removed and protected his talk page again. --pgk^(talk) 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Perpetual motion machine and Cox's timepiece

These two pages are currently in a revert war. It appears that some user from Kansas City keeps reverting a few times and then changing to another IP address. I would guess that this is probably User:Perpetual motion machine, who has been insistent upon saying that Cox's timepiece is a real perpetual motion machine that invalidates the second law of thermodynamics and most of modern physics. He has also started a revert war on Template:Perpetual motion machine, where he keeps replacing the very well known "Perpetual motion machine" with "Free energy device", claiming that Perpetual motion machine is somehow biased. Do I need to do a RFCU about this, or is this straightforward enough? Could someone look into doing something to stop this? --Philosophus ^T 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked 204. for 3RR which was a bit naughty of me William M. Connolley 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the current version does not make it clear that due to the fact that the machine is still powered by a limited although ambient energy source (rather similar to anything powered by solar panels) it can't really be called a perpetual motion machine since it could not exist for eternity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional note - if a sock-check is done to determine if User:Perpetual motion machine is the string of edit-warring anons, it's probably a good idea to try to figure out what PMM's main account is, add add strongly-likely candidates to the sock check request. The PMM account appeared out of nowhere on June 1st and started creating templates and exhibiting other strong knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia, so it's probably a special-purpose account of a more established user. --Christopher Thomas 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:217.155.48.230 - repeated vandalism, no other contributions made

The article on Nigel Havers has been repeatedly vandalised by user 217.155.48.230. I keep cutting the childish rubbish out, but it keeps coming back. That user has not made any other contribution to wikipedia, so I think that person should be considered for banning from editing if this is possible. DrHydeous 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP address hadn't received any warning. I've left {{test}} on their userpage. If they persist, please use WP:AIV to report them. Jkelly 20:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Closing of a move request poll - request for review

I closed a move request in what I thought was a very difficult case at Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. The most important issue, in my opinion, was that a particular user had called attention to the poll on the talk pages of many users. Not counting users thus solicited (but counting every other registered user) the poll had 8 supports to 8 opposes. But the editors solicited to come to the page broke 13-1 in favor of the opinion of the person doing the soliciting. I interpreted this as a sign that the user had only contacted people he thought likely to agree with him. I felt this tainted the poll and I took it heavily into account when interpreting the results. I closed the poll as "no consensus". User:Jtdirl contested this as "outrageous", overrode my close and performed the move. I'm submitting the question for broader review. Haukur 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that your methods of counting votes (double counting those of people who have edited the page) was totally and completely not fair. Why should their opinions be held in higher value? My first attempt at improving the article was my vote. I think that counts just as much as any edit made to the article. To me, this said it all:

Obviously this all depends on completely arbitrary factors and if I had set any one of them differently in a direction more favorable to pro-movers the result would have gone their way - Haukur

How is your opinion fair game to sway the outcome of the vote? Charles 21:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard I set is certainly arbitrary but I have no hidden agenda nor even an opinion on where the page should reside. I just figured that the people who have actually edited the article in the past are more likely to know what they're talking about than those fresh in to vote on a move request. Haukur 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You should consider the Polish-bias when you talk about those who have edited it in the past (and knowing what they talk about). Obviously Polish individuals will be involved in Polish issues, but there is a lot of bias. I speak English and use the appropriate English forms on English Wikipedia. Why couldn't you just stick to standard methods of counting votes, rather than inventing an arbitrary method? Charles 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard method? What's the standard method for countering "Polish-bias", like you want me to do? :) What's the standard method for countering selective advertising? I just tried to be fair and take everything into account. Maybe I did give too much weight to some issues or too little to others - thanks for providing feedback. Haukur 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Haukurth made a good faith effort here, but I would say that in general, the "Wikipedia way" is to gather opinions from outside of an article's editing group, to gain fresh points of view in a complex situation. That is, after all, what the whole RFC process is about, is it not? --Elonka 21:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I worded it correctly. I didn't mean you should change how the votes of Polish editors are considered, what I meant is that it should be realized how weighty their votes would be, since the Polish editors on English WP are more likely to be interested in Polish subjects. That gives an unfair edge to the opposing side. I don't think any distinction should be made between votes, except those by anon or very new users. But that discussion should be saved for the whole move policy. Charles 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the people who were contacted were for the most part the people who had over the last three years done the work of pulling the pages on royalty, which were a notorious dumping ground for POV opinions and wacky titles, into a cohesive structure based on naming conventions. They were approached by that user not because they would "agree with him" (anyone who looks at the people contacted knows that they regularly vote different ways on issues. John Kenney and I, for example, are frequently on opposite sides in debates) but because they were people involved in doing the specialist work on the area of the naming conventions and so presumably the user believed that their contributions, for or against, in a topic many of them were experts on, would be useful. The consensus was 71% to move, 29% against. Haukur's mispresentation of the poll is hilarious. It suggests that he approached the page without knowing what was going on, jumped to (the wrong) conclusions and did his maths wrong. I moved the page as per the overwhelming consensus to move it. (Two of the votes of the 29% who opposed were suspected, BTW, of being sockpuppets of another 'oppose' voter.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, suspected by me as I noted in my close where I discounted their votes completely. In any case I was sort of hoping to have some input from administrators not previously involved, so far I've only had comments for people who voted to move this particular page. I still maintain that the selective soliciting of votes tainted the poll. And I don't see anything "unfair" about Polish contributors working and voting on Polish subjects. Haukur 21:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You failed to understand me. The only real unfair issue with Polish editors is when they are given extra clout (i.e. by you). Charles

I didn't give anyone brownie points for being Polish, I gave out brownie points for editing the article. That there is a correlation between being Polish and editing an article on a Polish king is not surprising, of course, but it doesn't indicate bias. Incidentally we're only talking about four editors here and one of them, Polish to the bone, happened to agree with you. Haukur 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

One of them obviously realised that this is English Wikipedia then! It isn't up to you to give out brownie points. Clout in requested moves isn't something you can just give out. Charles 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have very strong opinions on this but please understand that people can disagree with you in good faith and still realize that this is the English Wikipedia. Haukur 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So what Haukur is saying is that experts can't contribute to a vote if they haven't actually edited a page (even if they have edited hundreds of similar pages, just not that one), and that they have less right to participate than those who did edits, even where where those edits were contrary to naming conventions and the manual of style. I don't doubt that Haukur was well motivated in his actions, but he completely got it wrong. He judged that outside experts should be excluded, and a small number of editors who tried to give preference to their language usage over Wikipedia's in naming, should get priority. And experts who worked on the naming conventions and the manual of style cannot be told there is an issue to do with the application of the naming conventions and manual of style being discussed, even though those experts have years of edit histories of being impartial and of never voting en bloc for anything. Bizarre. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, as anyone can see. Look, I was working on the backlog on WP:RM and I came to this page. I haven't been involved in this apparently all-important life-or-death issue of the names of Polish monarchs before and I think I'm as neutral a closing admin as they come. I did my best to close the vote in a fair way. You then immediately overrode my decision and moved the page anyway, even though you had voted in the poll yourself. Now the people who agree with you are "experts" and the people who had previously worked on the article sneakily want to "give preference to their language usage over Wikipedia's". Could you try to see this in less stark terms? Haukur 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Less stark? Why do we need a prismatic rainbow of arbitrary numbers and niceties, that you admit would have swayed either way, in lieu of the standard? Obviously, there is a preference for the Polish form of the name among Polish editors. But they were fairly outvoted. Charles 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is stark. The people approached are the people involved in drafting the relevant manual of style and the relevant naming conventions for up to four years. I have done over 2000 edits on royalty related topics on Wikipedia. John Kenney probably as many. Charles has spent months since he joined working on the topic. So have others. The people approached were approached (BTW by someone few of us had even heard of) simply because, as the guys who had written thousands of articles on related topics, we might be able to offer a non-Polish insight into how the naming conventions and Manual of style work, and what, going by their guidelines, should have been the correct format for the name of the page. Many of the Polish contributors are new to Wikipedia and don't understand the MoS and NC and how both are used in shaping naming and content, and thought that WP must use a form of names used by Polish people. Wikipedia policy is on this Wikipedia to use the form used by English speaker (that does not mean English, if English speakers also use native language versions). The experts asked to contribute are all independent-minded and often disagree. Inviting their contributions did not in any way mean that their votes on either side of the argument could be taken for granted. On some Polish pages, all agreed. On many others, we all agreed. If anyone is looking for guaranteed block votes then they are wasting their time coming to me, to John Kenney, to Charles, to Deb or to others. We each make our own decisions on each case. We each made our own decision there.

BTW I moved it as per the consensus and did so explicitly, only because a wrong interpretation had been made. I would have done exactly the same if I had voted the other way. Once I vote the issue is closed with me. The only issue I care about is that the decision, whatever decision, is implemented, and I have on the past implemented decisions I disagreed about when a vote was clearcut and a week after the end of the vote no other admin had gotten round to doing the move. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, what is the standard method for closing a WP:RM vote? Haukur 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My own concern about the Polish issue, is that there's obviously an organized voting block via the Polish Noticeboard. I have noticed that as a matter of course, when a Polish-related issue comes up, one of their number spots the issue, posts about it on the noticeboard [75], and then there is usually a rapid influx of Polish-speakers to a particular poll, usually (though not always) voting as a block, with an emphasis on changing article titles from English spelling to Polish spelling. Which is fine, as long as other non-Polish speakers are also allowed to advertise a poll as a balance. Yet in this particular case, when an opposing editor, Marrtel, advertised the vote to other interested editors, it seems to have been regarded as a kind of vote-stacking.

As long as both "voting block" techniques are treated fairly, I have no problem with it, but when one voting block is considered okay, and the other side is regarded as inappropriate, it does give the appearance of a double-standard creeping in, as it clearly gives an advantage to whichever side is allowed to trigger a group of voters sympathetic to their cause. --Elonka 22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboards may in some cases be problematic but I don't see any obvious problem in this case. It's a noticeboard on Poland-related issues which anyone interested in those issues, be she Polish or not, can watch. Asking editors interested in Polish issues to vote on a Polish issue should usually be okay. Selectively soliciting votes from individual editors may be problematic and I think it was in this case. Haukur 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no selective soliciting votes from Martel. There was however, clear evidence on this and numerous other pages of block voting by Polish users to ignore the manual of style and naming conventions and turn references used internationally to Polish language variants used nowhere but Poland. It has been happening all over Polish articles, with topics that they never edited before suddenly being besieged by Polish editors, and rules everyone else follows being swept aside by their block voting. It is hard to read your contribution above and not see a bias in it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your theory of "experts being contacted" just doesn't hold up. User:Marrtel obviously just contacted editors he thought would agree with him and 13 to 1 they did. User:Orionus is the best example, his third edit to Wikipedia was to vote in a way Marrtel approved of on one Polish monarch. Then Marrtel solicited him to vote on three more, which he did. User:Orionus was a newbie with a day's old account, not an expert with thousands of relevant edits.

The English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all English speakers, not just native speakers of English. Polish readers and editors are as welcome as any. If there are articles which have a large number of Polish editors then they probably also have a large number of Polish readers so it's good that Polish preferences are well represented there. One of the things I personally like best about Wikipedia is that often I get to read articles on local issues written by the locals themselves, rather than filtered and dumbed down through the international media. Haukur 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP's rules are clear. Articles on English WP use language and naming that reflect usage by English language speakers. They call the Irish prime minister Taoiseach because that word, though Gaelic, is used by English speakers as the office's title. But they don't call the Irish president Uachtarán because that word is only used by Gaelic speakers. That is the same with all WP articles. That a cabal of Polish users are trying to do is force exclusively Polish usage, not used by English users, onto Polish articles. That is not allowed under WP rules. You should be concerned about the highjacking of articles by a linguistic cabal, rather than about the fact that other users vote to uphold Wikipedia rules by voting to put the name of a Polish king at the name that he belongs under according to the manual of style and wikipedia naming conventions. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Voting is evil.
2. Wikipedia is not a democracy.
3. No vote is going to get the manual of style changed in a particular language's instance. The Manual of Style is clear in that the English versions of names will be used, no matter what a vocal minority of Polish speakers desires. 02:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Few notes. One - I am an involved party and have voted in that RM, and I am a Polish editor. Two - I feel that a user who is involved in the vote should not 'override' the vote analysis by a clearly neutral RM specialist. Three: I find the accusations of 'Polish cabal' highly offensive, and I hope some neutral editors will reprimand those using such arguments and remind them of WP:CIVIL and related policies. Fourth: while some people speak about the 'evil Polish cabal', the same people feel that they have the right to move the articles not only if the consensus is disputed (like here) but even the RM vote is closed as 'no consensus' (evidence: RM closed with 'no consensus', article moved). I certainly think that the community should review this case and warn certain people about their behaviour.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The more people talk about "voting" the worse things will get. Matters of fact cannot be decided by votes. Matters of following style guides do not get decided by votes. NOTHING at wikipedia gets decided by a vote. Wikipedia works by building consensus through discussion. Obviously that has failed here. I know absolutely nothing about naming things in Polish, but if we have a style guide, we should follow it. If the style guide is bad, we should fix it. What we definitely should NOT do is decide with a vote to ignore the style guide. It is the responsibility of Admins to encourage discussion and help others reach consensus. If it is not appropriate to decide an issue by using consensus, it is the responsibility of the Admin to explain why, and direct those that disagree to the correct forum for their concerns and explain the appropriate process. -- Samuel Wantman 09:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A few minor points. To accuse somebody of biased editing because of nationality is very dangerous. I could use the same accusation in regards Russian, German, French, English voters of being unfriendly to Polish articles because of historic reasons, which would be damaging to Wikipedia and quite absurd since nationality doesn't determine views or opinions. Second as to claim that My own concern about the Polish issue, is that there's obviously an organized voting block via the Polish Noticeboard. Well it is a normal thing for a board to exist that focuses on topics of interest common to certain editors.For example there is similar Russian related noticeboard where frequent calls for attention to certain articles are made, and similiaryd then there is usually a rapid influx of Russian-speakers. Are such procedures against Wiki rules ? --Molobo 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I don't like seeing unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry flying around; they generate ill-will and can lead to witch-hunts. Therefore, I've investigated the claims that there was socking going on during the discussion. The following accounts are controlled by the same user:

• Logologist (talk · contribs)
• KonradWallenrod (talk · contribs)
• Mattergy (talk · contribs)
• Anatopism (talk · contribs)

Needless to say, that means roughly half the users opposed to the move were one user with socks. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:EngineerEd

I have indefinitely blocked the user as a possible malicious vandal, who may have deliberately inserted false information into Collapse of the World Trade Center. Refer to User talk:EngineerEd. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the evidence supports that EngineerEd (talk · contribs) was a strawman of TruthSeeker1234 (talk · contribs), who is has also used Truth Seeker2 (talk · contribs) and Truthseeker2 (talk · contribs) accounts it appears.--MONGO 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Threats?

Someone should probably look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Death_threats_are_fun.21.

This diff's edit summary (I'm going to stab you and I know what you look like because of a picture on your user page...) is above and beyond WP:NPA. I've blocked User:I.M._Rich indefinitely for this diff, continued threats: [76] and ongoing trolling on Wikipedia:Help_desk#Death_threats_are_fun.21. Further edit summaries that are inflammatory: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]. No warnings were given prior to the indef block. I submit it here for review -- Samir धर्म 02:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure he earned an indef, but some time off certainly is deserved... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont think a perma-ban is the solution either. I just want to know what has gotten into him? Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It now seems that he wants to work something out. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a temporary solution. I think. Is there some way to reduce/redact the ban? Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Just institute a shorter block. For something like that, a day or two might be enough to send the message the first time. After all, when the creature snapped, he was going to run amock until he'd punched himself out, as they say on The Simpsons. I'm not sure how valuable the editor's going to be, but let's hope for the best. Geogre 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he was just coming back from a 24-hour block, and it didn't seem to have the desired calming effect. His first edit was to insult and implicitly threaten Pacific COast Highway ([82]), and he followed up with an attack on me (I placed the first 24-hour block): [83].

I gather that the guy has some good contributions behind him, and PCH seems to be taking this mostly in stride. Nevertheless, his behaviour is quite disruptive. Until he can work out how to control himself or manages to sort out whatever personal problems he's having, he's going to find himself blocked. I'm trimming the block down to 48 hours since he's expressed remorse and an interest in contributing positively again: [84]. He'll find himself back on involuntary wikibreak if he keeps acting out like this, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. Thanks for addressing -- Samir धर्म 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I got in on this whole thing a little late, but I'd just like to stick myself in in favor of I.M. Rich. I don't think his death threats are plausable, and he certainly has a large quantity of valuable contributions to WP:NYCS. An indefinite block would be entirely unreasonable and a certain detriment to the quality of NYC related articles. Coincidentally, when I first confronted him about the threats (I think I was the first), he responded reasonably (see the top of his talk page). --Alphachimp ^talk 06:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't find his comments amusing in the least, and his actions on his talk page are far from reasonable. Saying you will stab someone (and that it is feasible as you know what he looks like) is a serious matter. Not a joking matter at all, even if you don't think he's serious -- Samir धर्म 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Scribe85

User:Scribe85 has been blanking pages [85] [86], removing content [87], adding pointless lines [88]. And has been removing warnings from his/her talk page [89] [90] [91]. Many of these have been marked as being "minor" edits as well. On the other hand, there have been a lot of useful edits. I can't be bothered deal with it anymore. Up to you to decide what to do. --Midnighttonight 02:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this disruption?

Even after his arbitration case closed, PoolGuy has continued to push for the unblock/unprotection of his sock GoldToeMarionette, even requesting this on WP:RFP multiple times this week, after multiple rejections. Isn't that disruption? 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.4.132 (talk • contribs) .

Does this count as a legal threat or just a threat?

In an extension of drama over questionable edits to physics articles by another user, Tim Shuba (talk • contribs) appears to be threatening to indirectly reveal personal information, and appears to threaten a libel suit against another user. I'm not well-versed enough in the finer points of Wikipedia policy to tell whether this violates WP:NPA and WP:NLT or not.

Threat issued: diff

Threatened addition is the last paragraph of the following: link

--Christopher Thomas 05:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusing other users of crimes such as libel, and making insinuations about their personal information, is certainly a threat. It combines elements of a legal threat and a threat to disclose personal information or to harass. We can't afford to tolerate this kind of screwing around; it's already lost us too many good editors.

For the safety of Wikipedia editors, we need to establish a consensus that posting other users' personal information is always and forever equivalent to throwing your Wikipedia access away. Harassing other users by threatening to do so is simply a milder form of the same. --FOo 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Making such strict rules is a rather bad idea in my opinion. Editors can unintentionally post or disclose personal information of others who don't want it disclosed. In many cases, it is not necessarily clear as to how much personal information someone wants on the encyclopedia. Some users have enough personal information on their user pages for anyone to find out exactly where they are in real life, others, like me, would be highly concerned if even my first name or IP address were posted. It is difficult for users to know what the wishes of other users are, and slips can certainly happen, especially with names. Threatening to do so is quite often done by people who should not be tolerated, but is also occasionally done by people who don't understand that it isn't acceptable. --Philosophus ^T 07:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should be a zero tolerance policy on the posting of personal information by other parties. Certainly one event should not lead to a permanent ban, but one 'accident' should have sufficient consequences to make it absolutely clear that a second 'accident' will not be tolerated and will have lasting consequences for the editor. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, slips can be made, but if you consciously use it as a threat, it's no longer a mistake. Of course, you're free to use material shared on userpages, but if any piece of information requires you to search, you should leave it buried. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:White (people)

A user brought this page to my attention, but I'm way out of my depth in knowing how to handle what appears to be a bit of a POV war/revert war going on in the talk, and in the article itself. Take a look at the recent history:[92] and in particular this series of diffs (about 20 edits or so) [93] Frankly, call me chicken, as I'm not sure I'd want to wade into this article, but I did want to post about it here (or point me elsewhere) so it's not overlooked. ++Lar: t/c 05:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Assistance Needed

I'm not really sure where to put this (so apologies if i'm posting in the wrong place). But i'm just alerting fellow wikipedians that whenever i try to search 'myspace,' it eventually leads me to the Homosexuality page as of today (June 23rd).

I do not have the sources (or idea) to know how to fix up this vandalism, so i'm asking for assistance. Thanks (: --Umbrellaparty 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to a redirect to MySpace. Am I missing something? I don't understand this edit [94]. He doesn't seem to be a vandal. Antandrus (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm not relatively sure either. I just thought, if someone changed the redirect of the original page it would be considered as vandalism, wouldn't it? ie. Myspace > Homosexuality, equals Myspace is gay. Thanks for the help, by the way. --Umbrellaparty 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like textbook vandalism to me. I've asked Fractions about it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Watercool

Is persisting with a fork at Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. Watercool created that fork by cut-and-paste today, being unhappy with a move done by Cfvh. I have warned Watercool, but Watercool reverted yet, returning the fork. Seems to me that the user is not exactly new (that's my impression, not a verified fact), but the account is new. Anyway, Watercool displays certain persistent, obstinate character, in other articles too. Seems to me Watercool is pushing some POV in several places. Isn't a block of some week that recommendable response to cool down obstinacy in an editor's missionary attitude? Anyway, I think admins should chack now and then what Watercool is doing. ObRoy 10:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:JzG vandalism and admin priviledge abuse

User:JzG made changes to my userpage, and´deleted much of its content for no good reason. When I reverted his edits, he responded by deleting the page and reinstalling his version and then protecting it from edits. --Rdos 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the user page history, I support User:JzG's actions. I've deleted the same content from Rdos's user talk page, and protected it. I've asked the user to indicate that he will cease posting deleted material on his user talk page for the purpose of soapboxing, at which point I will unprotect it. Nandesuka 11:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascism. I will *never* let ignorant admins judge what is appropriate for *my* user page. In that case I will delete it altogther instead. --Rdos 11:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I asked nicely, then I asked firmly, then I removed the content, and only after all the above failed (the content was reposted almost immediately) did I take more drastic action. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 21#Neanderthal_theory_of_autism is also relevant. Just zis Guy you know? 11:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This situation is really a lesson of power abuse. First Nandesuka protects my *talk* page, and then User:JzG places more insulting conmments on it. It doesn't matter how you ask, the point is that this is a violation of the userpage policies. --Rdos 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For values of insulting which may include pointing out, in pretty much so many words, that you are standing in a deep hole and still digging. Just zis Guy you know? 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

These are not the only insults by User:JzG. Take a look at the correspnodance on his talk page. --Rdos 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Nandesuka removes contents from my user talk page, and then protects it from edits. The policies for user talk pages clearly doesn't allow such actions. Besides, how could possibly anybody comment on the conflict (apart from admins), when they have no idea about the contents removed (no history) and cannot place comments on the talk page? --Rdos 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The violation of the userpage policies — which, by the way, cover your user talk page — was your posting inappropriate material on it. I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and move on. This material will not be posted on Wikipedia, and you are going to need to accept that. If you are unhappy with JzG's or my actions, I encourage you to open an RFC or, if that doesn't satisfy you, an arbitration case. However, continuing to heap abuse on other editors is likely to get you blocked for disruption. So instead of calling us fascists, I suggest you use more measured language, such as "I'm unhappy about your decision." Nandesuka 11:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles are sometimes preserved in userspace because, with work, they may be able to go back into articlespace. However, if no amount of work can make them suitable, as is the case with Rdos' theory promoting a link between autism and subhumans, proven by multiple AfDs and the current DRV, then they have no place in userspace, per Wikipedia is not a free webhost. JzG and Nandesuka's actions were entirely correct. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. Proto///type 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User Megawattbulbman

Sounds like work for WP:PAIN, moved. Netscott 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack as such, it was just rudeness. I was midreplying to it when I got edit conflicted, darn you Netscott :@ Proto///type 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)