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

403 = Blocked?

The wiki mirror at OmniKnow.com seems to be getting an HTTP 403 Forbidden in response to all calls to Wikipedia; the entire OmniKnow project is thus in jeopardy.

Could someone please email me a.s.a.p., at email@owlcroft.com , to let me know what the problem is/was, so we can get back on the air as soon as is practicable? We have always striven mightily to scrupulously observe all terms of use, so we are mystified as to what might be the issue.

Thank you very much.

63.174.56.22 21:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: I believe the calling IP Address would be 209.68.29.47

Using Wikipedia to astroturf?

Take a look at http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/06/09/wikipedia_authority_and_astroturf.php and Talk:Symphony OS. I have real misgivings about this, but what if anything can be done? Should anything be done? -- ChrisO 20:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is something that is in alpha get it's own article in the first place? The software is in alpha-test according to the site. Should every Sourceforge project that might get somewhere get their own page without having released a major version of some kind? I'm tempted to VfD it. Inter\^Echo 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. Does EliasAlucard really have to go toe-to-toe with Clay Shirky? The content is not Shirky's to dictate, but he is a pretty influential blogger. I wish editors could show enough restraint not to personally attack well known web personalities on talk pages. Rhobite 20:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just posted to Shirky's blog strongly suggesting his homework for the evening was WP:VFD - David Gerard 00:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be pleased if editors could show enough restraint not to personally attack anyone on talk pages. Alas.... --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the solution to undesirable speech may really be more speech. If somebody wants to piggyback off Wikipedia (and Slashdot) like this, they should remember that they no longer control where they're getting carried off to. See Symphony OS#Promotion efforts. --Michael Snow 05:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly speaking: I don't have anything to do with Slashdot, never have, and most likely never will. This is the entire reason I'm pissed off at Clay Shirky. I don't care if he's an influential blogger. What he posted on his blog is a complete lie. Whilst it might be true that the slashdot article editor was trying to promote Symphony OS, I was not. I created the Wikipedia article, simply because I wanted facts about the OS, without having to post on various Linux forums and get answers that very well might not be true. That's it. Clay Shirky comes long, posts a contrived story about me and the article, as if he knew me in person, and my thoughts. So why am I pissed off at Clay? Because if anyone actually believed him, they'd probably delete my account for advertisement. Not that it would make any difference, since I can always edit without an account, or just register another nickname, but still, I don't want to loose my entire edit history which I've put a lot of time and effort into. Either way, if anyone looks at my edit history, you can all see that I've been on Wikipedia for just about a year, I've learnt a lot from Wikipedia, and I want to improve it in every way I can. Creating an article about an OS isn't advertising, if it were, then put a VfD tag on Windows XP and Linux because they've probably given more advertising than this tiny article. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:56, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's going to delete your account. I'm hard-pressed to find anything on Shirky's blog that resembles a lie — please don't make inflammatory accusations without evidence. --Michael Snow 17:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I say the same about Clay Shirky. He's making accusations without evidence. I dare anyone to prove that I was advertising. If you cannot prove it, then don't buy into his crap. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:54, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

I've never said anything about you advertising; what the article says is that some (unidentified) person took advantage of Slashdot for that purpose. --Michael Snow 17:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Anglius

I've been seeing the conflict around this one and looking through the contributions. Almost everything the user has added is blatant trolling and fostering of conflict, deliberate NPOV violations or adding unreferenced and apparently spurious information to articles. Remonstrations on his talk page are like water off a duck's back. Is there any evidence this user is anything other than a trolling account? - David Gerard 00:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should avoid overuse of the label "troll"...a user can be very wrong and very obnoxious without being a troll. The troll label seems to be intended to put someone on the fast track to banning. I haven't seen anything from this user (except the laughable vote on RfA—I think I would sooner say we should only vote women into the job), but in any case I think the distinction has to be made, and caution applied. Perhaps someone could conduct a private e-mail discussion with him, which might be more productive. Everyking 01:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion - I think you should contact him. Guettarda 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion concerning Anglius would be to just ignore him for right now. He hasn't done anything "wrong"; yes, he's eccentric and his point of view/behavior is obsolete by about a century, but he isn't breaking any rules. I will keep an eye on him, and I will correct him if needed. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Per the user page note saying "Anglius previously appeared 'under' many other 'names'" plus the pattern of behaviour, this is not a newbie who happens to be eccentric. I'd recommend keeping that in mind while watching him and trying not to feed the troll. Jonathunder 01:50, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

What do I know about any of this? I'm not going to contact him, I don't even know the basis of the dispute. I was just outlining some general ideas about this kind of thing. Everyking 02:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlike just about everyone else, you haven't pre-judged him. If there is any chance of getting some good out of him via dialogue it shouldn't be someone who has already declared him guilty. Guettarda 02:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I (and lots of other editors) are closely watching his (fortunately sparse) edits. His point of view on the world borders on bizarre, as does his writing style, but his edits have been mostly harmless and occasionally beneficial. I am not inclined to believe that any administrative actions is warranted at this point. If he is a troll, I would only wish that all other trolls would be as well behaved as he is. Kelly Martin 17:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Now Moves are failing?

I was trying to move Felis Concolor back to Puma just before the database was locked, but kept getting the usual ERROR message. Now I've just tried five times and keep getting the ERROR. This is the same problem we were having with Deletes earlier in the week. Is anybody else having problems with moves? RickK 04:11, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've periodically had this problem with quite a few operations (edits, deletes, moves, just about everything but simply viewing a page). It comes and goes, perhaps depending on the load the servers are under. But it doesn't seem to be consistently impossible, the way deletions were earlier. --Michael Snow 04:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finally got the move to work, after about 25 tries off and on. RickK 06:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've been seeing this error message on and off with all sorts of operations: edits, histories, what-links, etc. I had a case a couple of days ago with an undelete operation - I just couldn't get it to go through, even though I kept trying. It's definitely load-related (i.e. happens more when the system is loaded), but it seems to occur even at times of low load (e.g. I saw it at 3AM East Coast time). It's strange, because it seems like operations either finish quickly, or take forever and timeout, and they are intermixed like that - a failure is followed right away by an instant success. Which makes it seem like what's happening is the Apaches are losing the request, or perhaps the Squids are sending the request to an Apache which is hung, or busy, or something. We should try and get a better characterization of the symptoms, and let the developers know. Anyone know if a bug report has been filed on this? Noel (talk) 08:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Awais141

Awais141 (talk · contribs) is uploading a large number of images and labeling them as Public Domain without explaining why they are PD. Does not respond to requests for provenance. RickK 06:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rogue Administrator RickK

Rogue administrator "RickK" has reverted homonazi to his preferred version (maybe 3 times) and used his administrative power of blocking to ensure that his preferred version stays. His claim is that he was "blocking a vandal", but he has not disclosed what he finds "vandalistic" or in fact involved himself in any communication. Is this sort of maverick administrator allowed to block at will, with no one ensuring that he doesn't run roughshod in this way over "ordinary" users? - Bella Donna 07:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, admins are essentially allowed to do whatever they like regarding this sort of thing, we don't have checks and balances or anything like that. That said, I'm not quite sure what you're fighting over. You believe this should not be an article? Why not simply wait for the VfD process? Also you shouldn't have "Hitler" in your user name (some admins would consider this prohibited, I would prefer to merely discourage it strongly), so there's another strike against you. Everyking 07:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, admins are not essentially allowed to do whatever they like regarding this sort of thing. This is why the issue came up with your editing of a certain article. My 2 cents. (I'm not commenting on homonazi, which I know nothing about). func(talk) 21:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of using my admin abilities in that dispute? Whether you think I was right or wrong clearly I stayed within the boundaries regarding that. The Arbcom itself said they could not order a revote on my adminship because I had not abused any admin powers. Everyking 21:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My appoligies, Everyking. I was concerned with how you characterized the nature of adminship responsibilities, and I brought an incorrect and unnessesary characterization of you into it. I'm sorry. func(talk) 23:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the edits he was reverting, he was reverting simple vandalism, which is hardly "rogue" or "maverick" behavior. I see nothing wrong with it. --Carnildo 07:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not quite vandalism, but certainly very POV commentary of a kind which is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 09:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That article will undoubtedly deleted soon, but it's still in the name space. In adhering to some semblence of professional standards, RickK was right to revert it, as vandalism, which it clearly is: the additions tunred it into a narrative that editorializes itself (POV is one thing; commentary is another). Even answers.com, which I love, would not pay us money for that. Unimportant tidings, at any rate. El_C 10:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It always makes me feel good to know that the vandals and trolls hate what I do. RickK 19:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be too proud of this editorial terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a vandal is insignificant next to the power of the Wiki. JRM · Talk 19:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Sorry for that one. And I'm not even a fan. JRM · Talk 19:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Not a fan of answers.com? Wau. El_C 01:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:IlluSionS667

IlluSionS667 (talk · contribs) has suddenly appeared making edits to a range of article concerned with "Supremacism" (David Duke, Black supremacy, White supremacy, etc.), including creating Jewish supremacism. When I VfDed the latter, he moved the contents to "Jewish supremacy", and made the original article into a redirect. I doubt that he's a newcomer; could someone do an IP check to see if he's one of our old friends? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After meeting opposition to his attempt to delete external links from Supremacism, he went straight to Wikipedia:Third opinion — again, not the action of a newcomer to Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will look into the situation right now. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Wragge

Someone seems to have taken over this account and changed the password. Is it OK if I block it from editing, leaving a message for the real User to contact an admin when he turns up, so that he can regain control of it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know what the account's password was? ~~~~ 15:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taken over? Yeah, maybe s/he was having a party and someone drunkingly typed that in jest, hard to tell. El_C 01:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could be that Wragge was drunk. I can't see any dodgy edits apart from to the user page. It would do no harm to block just in case: he can always contact Mel to get unblocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Strom in green tea cup, me thinks. El_C 02:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Storm in a glass of vodka, more like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

See, I really don't like this attitude towards blocking, I don't think it's something to be done so lightly. If no account takeover has happened, then this will cause a lot of annoying trouble for Wragge. So it would do some harm. A block isn't something you just throw around with thinking. Everyking 04:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are explanations for this besides that his account has been taken over. Of course that is one possibility. I think the block was a bit excessive; nothing extreme was going on, like article vandalism. For all we know it was Wragge having a little fun on his own user page, which I think we would agree is harmless. Everyking 04:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I don't think the user was actually blocked. I agree that one shouldn't block without thinking; that's why Mel Etitis brought it up here for our advice instead of just blocking Wragge. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK, my mistake. Everyking 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've seen a number of people making fun of themselves on their userpages. I always revert such things just to be safe and have been contacted by the users in question, it was them having fun. Let's watch out and make sure the user doesn't start any serious disruptive actions and only block when he starts disrupting processes or articles. (Maybe reverting the userpage is a good idea too if it can be offensive to Wragge). Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• The edit was not only out of character, but was stylistically wrong. I still doubt very mucch that it was Wragge. I protected the page against editing, until Wragge returns; of course I didn't block him (as my message above indicates, I was asking for advice, not reporting my action). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt there's one person here, who, while drunk, can correctly distinguish between your and you're. :) El_C 14:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You're replying to him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Your reply is noted! Noel (talk) 18:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • There, now that everybody has demonstrated their grammatical skills, will they agree that they're not going to do this again? -- Cyrius|✎ 23:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, but did you write the above while drunk? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mystery solved; the rogue edits were made by his daughter. Phew! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Letter writing

Recently I saw this article had been transwikied and now consisted of only an interwiki link (grounds for speedy delete, by WP:CSD, article, #3). In fact there had been a VfD ruling to the effect of transwiki and delete. Only after the I put the tag on and it was speedied did I realize what I had gotten myself into, when Woohookitty informed me of the previous conflict with the article's creator, and the vandalism that ensued. He wrote to me:

"I will keep the speedy deletion intact, but if the guy who kept trying to recreate the original article comes back...have fun. :) He literally put every article I've ever written up for deletion in retaliation. In early February, I put the article up for vfd as a way of stopping this guy and the solution was to keep it as a wiki interlink. is the vfd discussion on it. If you still want to speedy delete it, go ahead, but as I said, if Richard pulls this crap again, have fun. And see, Richardr443 wrote on the talk page about it and is now threatening to recreate the entire article. So I'm going to take the speedy delete off. I know it should be deleted, but this moron is going make my life hell (again) if it's speedy deleted. And actually as I typed this, the article just got deleted. So here we go again. Thanks."

Now the original content of the article, not just the redirect, has been recreated by an anon, but it must be that original author/vandal (User:Richardr443), judging by the fact it was than exact copy. Do you think someone could take a look at this situation? And to be clear, it is a how-to, and not an encyclopedic article, and exists on Wikibooks. --Dmcdevit 06:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the anon that recreated the article did vandalize Woohookitty's page in the past, and both the anon and Richard have RickK's vandalism warnings on the same day. They must be the same person. --Dmcdevit 06:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am the person that Dmcdevit is referring to...the one who has been vandalized by Richard several times. Admins, if there is any way to stop this from reoccuring again and again, please do so because frankly, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this jerk. I would suggest banning him myself. This is the third time he's recreated this article since January. The article is not encyclopedic in the least. We have already tried making the article a interwiki link and then we tried to make it a speedy delete...and both times, he came back. For now, I will leave the article as it is until you guys come up with some way of stopping this. --Woohookitty 07:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think, based on this, all this editor needs is a bit of explaining why it belongs on Wikibooks and why it didn't show up in a search immediately. Also, it may be a good idea to tell them how to make the page more visible. Wikibooks isn't just some obscure "other site", it's a Wikimedia project for textbooks. Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I wish it was that simple, Mgm, but this guy has been unyielding...no compromise whatsoever. --Woohookitty 19:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD trolls

We have had three brand new accounts created in the last two days who have all headed immediately to the VfD pages and began casting votes with no prior Wikipedia edits. You have to wonder if they're doing so to build up their Wikipedia edits in order to qualify for page moves. One of them has already been blocked for finally succumbing to vandalism after their VfD vote spree. They are ShureMicGuy (talk · contribs), ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs) and Jinkleberries (talk · contribs). Jinkleberries is the one who was blocked. RickK 23:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Might want to add Chubby Chicken (talk · contribs) to that list. RickK 23:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• this edit by Jinkleberries makes me a little worried because this user adds xys name to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I would also suggest taking a look at User:Melvis, User:Hohokus, and User:Toasthaven. Although they have (a few) other edits, those accounts appear to have been created primarily to vote on VfDs. Toasthaven headed straight to the VfD pages for his/her first edit, a majority of the others' edits are VfD votes. All have few edits and accounts were created within the last three weeks. Kaibabsquirrel 23:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, both Melvis and Hohokus deleted the welcome messages other Users put on their Talk pages, without a thank you or any other comment. RickK 00:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

So, we finally have it coming. I've seen quite a few even smarter new users, who, when a particular VfD starts, sit and make cosmetic edits, and then proceed to VfD. Still other accounst are dormant, but periodically reactivate during some VfD. Something must be done with the policy. It worked so far, since so far vandals are not consolidated. But I smell massive attacks coming. mikka (t) 01:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is much of a problem, personally: if someone has made only a small quantity of edits someone will be sure to point that out (because the opposition is always looking for any way to disqualify a vote), and that vote will either not be counted or given reduced weight—particularly if the account's edits are only very minor ones. On the other hand, if someone wants a vote and they are willing to do a reasonable about of wiki-work so that their vote will be counted, that's fine by me; even if I don't like the vote I'd still say we're better off to have someone making good edits, even if they are opportunistic. Everyking 01:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But as I said above, and as I think Mikkalai is trying to say, these users seem to be collecting edits to give them enough valid edits to be eligible to make page moves. RickK 04:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I often wonder if it would be worth having a minimum edit requirement before you can vote on the various -fd pages (even if it's low, say 100 edits). The only groups that head straight there with little prior wiki-ing experience seem to be the creators of the pages, vandals, and sockpuppets. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind if the author of an article on VFD would vote there. So I oppose a minimum edit requirement. When they can provide proof their page is factually correct and belongs to wikipedia in a detailed rationale, I'm all for it. It's the people that vote keep without explanation (or those who stuff votes) when all others vote delete that annoys me. (forgot to sign earlier - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC))
  • Well, there can be an explicit exception that the creator of the article gets to vote unconditionally, but for others they need to have some edits on record to show that they have some substantial interest in editing besides just that one article on VfD. Everyking 08:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we might not even need an exception for the creator, if we were to state that anyone is allowed to discuss on VFD, but only established users can vote. Radiant_>|< 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway. The usage of role or sock accounts for *FD voting has been alleged to in the past, and I can see it becoming a substantial problem (because if not stopped somehow, some people might react by doing the same thing to counter opposing socks). I think the only feasible way of stopping it is sockchecking. Immediate banning of suspected role accounts is too harsh since some of them would be legit, but calling for an IP check would solve that problem. I realize sockchecking is somewhat controversial because of privacy issues, but maybe we should discuss that anyway. Radiant_>|< 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  I cannot see it becoming a substantial problem. We've had the problem (and the discussion) for quite some time now. The worst that can happen (has happened) is that a VfD vote gets stuffed with nonsense votes. But keep in mind it's not really a vote; the administrator who closes the discussion is who decides what happens to the article, based on the legitimate input of the community. A blanket "keep" or "delete" counts for very little (nothing if not from an established account), and "me, too" votes are usually only as strong as the original argument. IP checks are still no match for common sense. I think it would be too much to hope that we can identify a small number of people who consistently ruin votes, and ban them. Of course, if people want to spend time and effort on checking this, good for them; I think no essential solution to the problem exists, however, other than trusting in the good sense of administrators. JRM · Talk 12:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Not entirely. The issue of a single VfD vote being spammed with socks happens occasionally (in particular when an article on a web forum is up for deletion), and isn't really a problem, since it goes away in a week's time. However, what IS a problem is users creating a secondary account for the purpose of double-voting. There has been a recent inrush of new accounts that vote on a lot of different VfD discussions. The first few times they are recognizable by their low contribs record, but after a week or so that becomes difficult. Radiant_>|< 14:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • VfU has a very simple and reasonable suffrage policy, as stated on Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy I can't think of any reason why the same policy couldn't/shouldn't apply to VfD as well. It would sure cut down on the sockpuppets and trolls. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of power and taking sides by some admins

Hello all,

After a long absense, due to frustration with Wikipedia because of some admins taking side on issues and mischievously backing up their "side", I decided to return to Wikipedia today and checkup on the old articles. Not surprisingly, the following articles had been restored to pathetic religious pamphlets for the Bahá'í Faith. I reverted only twice (after an almost immediate revert by one of the Bahai watchdogs here in Wikipedia) and almost immediately one of the ops by the ID of Tony Sidaway who made me leave Wikipedia in the first place, put a ban on me. I had not done ANYTHING to justify a ban. This same admin had personal issues with me before and after a long absense, as soon as I return, he immediately puts and unjustified ban on me. Shouldn't he lose his badge? Please review these pages and their history, and ask this admin what was his excuse for banning me. Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'u'lláh's family. Also, there is a perfectly normal and authentic and acceptable photo of Bahaullah available, but these guys do not allow the photo to appear on the articles about him, because, frankly, he looks bad. Their excuse is that this photo can be potentially offensive to the Bahai visitors of the Wikipedia. Everytime I have tried to use logic with them, they say let's take a vote in the TALK page. Well, guess what? The majority of people to watch those pages are Bahais (and their numerous sockpuppets. So how can one win in such a "democracy" ?!! Besides, since when encyclopedia articles are decided by taking votes, as opposed to hard facts and evidence and facts? This is really lame.

Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.4.42 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) / — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

while you are here could you please resond to your RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martin2000.Geni 16:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on the issue of the photo. However, your conduct has been appalling and has no doubt alienated people who would otherwise support your stance. Instead of pursuing the normal channels of discussion and dispute resolution, you choose sockpuppets and vulgar insults. And now you try to seek the protection of the rules which you flagrantly violated? Gamaliel 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i violated those rules precisely because of the bad admins like this idiot and Geni who has CLEARLY been taking sides on the Bahai related pages. If admins abuse people, people will also react, and besides, when I am unfairly banned what can i do other than creatig other ID's or use proxies? It is EXTREMELY important that the admins do not abuse their power or not take sides, otherwise, you can't expect "good citizenship" just as you can't expect that in a real city if the authorities were abusive and dishonest. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't justify antisocial behaviour though. It's like saying it's okay to commit crimes just because some cops are corrupt. See WP:POINT. --khaosworks 17:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Tony Sidaway keeps a personal admin log justifying his admin actions, though it hasn't been updated in a while. His user page says's he's on a break. -- Longhair | Talk 17:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I discontinued it a while ago. I'm trying to go on wikibreak, but it's harder than I thought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just like in real life, here you can't take the law into your own hands. Reporting the alleged abuse should have been your first step, not one taken well after a campaign of your own abuse. Gamaliel 17:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm allowed to take sides. Admins do so all the time. I did not abuse my admin powers at any point in the conflict.Geni 17:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NO, as an admin you are entitled to have your personal opinion and choices, but you are not allowed to take sides (as an admin). You have been taking sides (and lending obvious and not-so-obvious) support to the Bahai group who disallow any facts which they don't approved to be contributed to the Bahai-related articles. For example, Bahaullah is a man, Wikipedia is in possession of some AUTHENTIC photos of this man, there is NOTHING WRONG with the photos (other than the fact that the man looks like crap of course), yet, you have been either completely depriving the related articles from his photo, or only in one case, you have agreed to his photo to be placed at the bottom of a very long article. Even then, you disallowed a note on top of the article to warn the people who supposedly get "offended and hurt" by seeing his phto, that there is a photo of this man at the bottom, be careful not to accidentally see it. So you are a wikipedia admin, and your actions work against Wikipedia interest. Instead of helping Wikipedia improve and enhance, you try to cripple wikipedia articles based on your personal preferences. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's only because he disagrees with you. If he was taking your side, you'd likely be lauding him for his wisdom and encouraging him. --khaosworks 18:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote above before jumping in to make a fool of yourself? There is no justification for crippling Wikipedia articles from perfectly authentic and legitimate photographs that are 100% related to the articles. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course I did. I am not taking sides on that issue - my comment was directed purely at your abusive edit summaries and childish whining when you're not getting your way. --khaosworks 18:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I reverted your abuse of the Bahai articles because you are CRIPPLING Wikipedia articles from 100% pertinent, legal and useful information and data. If you want to deprive those articles from the photo of the man about which the articles are written, then explain here, not to me, but to your fellow admins, what is your justification and excuse to doing this. Also, why should we only do that to one article? Why not do the EXACT SAME THING to many other articles? Please discuss it right here in fron of all admins instead of taking action all on your own. Just because you are an admin doesn't mean you can make all decisions here all by yourself. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

my full reasoning can be found on Talk:Bahá'u'lláh and it's various archives. As an editor I am free to take sides in a conflict.Geni 21:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

man, admins can take sides all they like. They just cannot use their admin powers in cases where they do take sides. If you did no harm, and suddenly an admin with a personal grudge against you jumps on you out of the blue and blocks you, why, you simply open an rfc against that admin, citing the relevant evidence, and there are plenty of people here you will be only too happy to jump all over the offending admin. Admins may not be perfect little Salomons at all times, but they are not "above the law" either. If an admin fucks up, people will give him hell. People are very sensitive about "rogue admins". If you are just frustrated that you didn't get your way in a content dispute, however, your best bet will be to draw the community's attention to the content of the dispute. The more immaculate your behaviour in your dispute, the more likely will you arouse sympathy. dab (ᛏ) 19:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When an admin takes sides in a dispute, often the non-admins get intimidated. Also many other admins when they see an admin is involved, they tend to avoid conflicts with other admins and they seem to have an attitude of "why risking a clash with an admin?" -- Therefore, how can anybody in his right mind honestly believe that "admins can take sides all they want"? At any rate, Tony Sideways didn't even have enough respect for other admins to explain here why he put a ban on a user unjustifiedly. I had only reverted twice, and not used any bad language, and not done any vandalism. His arrogance is disgusting. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.248.129 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok, I just realized that Martin is only putting the image into the Bahai Faith intro to annoy Bahais (the man is not even ugly, it's just that Bahais are not supposed to view the image). Clearly, the image does not belong on the article on the Faith, while it does belong on Bahá'u'lláh (even if you're Bahai, if you view an article on the person, you may reasonably expect that there will also be an image of that person). dab (ᛏ) 19:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a longstanding compromise on Bahá'u'lláh, to put the photograph at the foot of the article therefore giving Bahais time to prepare. Martin keeps moving it to the top and claims that there's some rule or other that says it mustn't be at the bottom. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the the REAL reason for putting the photo at the bottom of the article was so that visiting Bahais do not accidentally see the photo, and Bahaullah Forbid, "accidentally" see that photo, then they would not have removed a notice at the very top of the article once which warned the reader about the fact that "be careful, the photo is at the bottom". The ONLY reason they want to treat this article exceptionally is because that photo being where it belongs is not a good "advertisement" for their cult. Also, on the article about Bahaullah's Family, Bahaullah's own photograph most certainly belongs there. As a Wikipedia admin, one of your obligations is to ensure Wikipedia articles are not crippled or deprived from useful, pertinent and authentid information and data; and that includes photographs. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.248.129 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note the use of the purjorative "cult" from mister NPOV -- Christian Edward Gruber 01:25, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

You appear to be in violation of assume good faith. meanwhile would someone protect the relivant pages please the revert rate is getting silly again.Geni 01:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I find quite darkly humorous is Martin's use of phrases like "abuse" or "crippling" to refer to the re-organization of information to allow for a religious sensitivity. The information (the picture) is not being removed, censored, altered, or in any ways "crippled". There is a prominent link near the top to go down to the bottom. Far from crippling wikipedia, the table-of-contents feature is actively being used to call out the picture's existance. This both notifies interested people, and warns people who might find its presence disturbing. Everyone seems to win... except Martin for some reason. Actually for not reason. This has moved beyond reason. I have read the entire history log of Baha'i, Baha'u'llah, and Baha'i Faith and cannot see why Martin continues to "cripple" Wikipedia by going against a consensus that blends the opinions of Baha'is, opponents of the Baha'i Faith, and other third-parties. Breaking consensus, 3RR, sockpuppet use, and flagrant verbal assault - these cripple Wikipedia, as they drive honest high-minded people away and leave wiki in the hands of article-vandals, or at least highly prejudiced and antagonistic contributors. -- Christian Edward Gruber 01:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

The anonymous ID who made the above edits which were signed as Martin2000 has just made the following two edits:

Bahá'u'lláh's family: Go get fucked sideways, and shove your badge up your lame wide ass, stupid ugly bastard.)

Bahá'u'lláh ("Manifestation OF God" my ass. He was a man and we have his photo. It belongs right here. Even if there was a real and authentic Photo of Jesus available, it belonged to the article about Jesus.)

I have blocked him for 24 hours. RickK 01:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

past expeirence suggests that page protection is the only effective measure.Geni 01:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both pages are protected. Martin doesn't seem to understand there are two different issues here: the picture issue and the conduct issue. Given his outrageous behavior I don't think anything will convince him of the difference. Banning seems to be the only solution. Gamaliel 02:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

arbcom cases require effort.Geni 02:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:204.56.7.1

Anon user (on Albert Einstein) insists on inserting an infobox without coming to any consensus on the talk page first, as asked directly by a number of editors. Has broken the 3RR in the process (already reported, not yet blocked). Is also "gaming the system" -- adding the infobox in one edit, then making small changes elsewhere, then when the page is reverted back to a pre-infobox state, uses any of the small changes not transferred over as an excuse to protest "removal of content" and rv again. (because of the nature of the infobox changes, it is hard to easily do this by hand. I've done it twice but I'm getting pretty frustrated). Now is insisting that if the article doesn't have an infobox, it shouldn't have a main picture at all. I'm all out of reverts for one day, I can't attend to this, would really appreciate an admin 1. blocking this user for 24 hours at least (for the 3RR if not general accusations of vandalism and gaming the system), and 2. reverting it back to one of the edits in the non-infobox state (there needs to be some discussion over this first, and for the moment the non-infobox state is a lot easier to edit without this "removal of content" problem). If someone could take a look over there I'd really appreciate it, I'm getting pretty frustrated here by this anon user's refusal to discuss difficult-to-carefully-revert changes before making them. --Fastfission 17:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at this? It has been almost two hours now, the User has continued to be highly disruptive, has violated the 3RR almost twice over, and I feel like I'm talking to myself here. --Fastfission 19:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks more like a content dispute more than any vandalism. Might want to put this up on requests for page protection. But I agree that Anon IP has violated the 3RR. I'll leave a note warning him and if he does it again, I'll block for 24 hours. --khaosworks 19:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ozdusters

Could someone try whacking some sense into (Ozdusters (talk · contribs))? He insists on creating sub-substubs even after bein repeatedly warned. --W(t) 17:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Actually, given his knowledge of templates it's probably a returning troublemaker. --W(t) 17:41, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with substubs, so I think it's fine. I only looked at a few edits but they seem to be legit topics. As long as the article imparts some bit of info, I think that's sufficient. Everyking 17:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went with an alternate tack - a friendly hello and a few quick suggestions for someone who looks like they're editing in good faith, but don't quite get it yet. I wish I'd gotten to this new user before his/her initial nasty introduction to Wikipedia. CDC (talk) 17:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A little encouragement rather than a 'whack' goes a long way. Remember, don't bite the newcomers. -- Longhair | Talk 17:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not a newcomer, newcomer's don't know all the templates, nor do they edit that fast. He's now editing as Sealpupsarecute by the way. --W(t) 18:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Sometimes newbies learn how to do it before plunging in. Assume good faith, man. Why not try a bit more Wikilove and a bit less "whacking"? Grace Note 07:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a problem with this idea that newcomers are all totally ignorant about things. I had been reading lots of stuff in the Wikipedia namespace and observing VfD debates for probably two months before I started my account. So I'm always skeptical when someone shouts "sockpuppet" whenever they see a newcomer who appears to be knowledgeable about things. Everyking 07:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• He's created about a dozen of oneliner articles on topics that, at first glance, seem interesting and expandable. I don't really see a problem here, but I've kindly asked him if he would enlighten us by expanding the topics. Radiant_>|< 08:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation revisited

After blocking impersonations of SlimVirgin and Anilocra (using I instead of L), Anilocra informed me User:MacGvverMagic had registered and copied my user and user talk page (note the v instead of the y). I'd never seen this letter substitution before, so be on the look out. I'm sure impersonators share their tricks. Mgm|^(talk) 18:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

They might, but giving out little tips on impersonation by telling the community here is worse. The impersonators can learn of these little tricks from seemingly harmless posts like this one. More caution is needed! You don't want to be sharing one impersonator's tricks with another one, do you? JMBell° 19:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tips for impersonators:

• Any vowel can be replaced by a vowel with an accent mark. This works best with a lower-case "i"
• "I", "l", "1", "!", "i", and "|" are all interchangable
• "j" and "i" can be swapped
• "m" and "n" can be swapped
• "O", "0", and "Q" are interchangable
• "S" and "5" can be switched
• "t" and "+" can be swapped
• "U" and "V" can be exchanged
• "u", "v", and "y" are interchangable
• "W" and "VV" are interchangable, as are "w" and "vv"
• "z", "s", and "c" can sometimes be switched, if the resulting word sounds the same
• Unicode and high-ANSI offer even more options: letters like ç and ł, ligatures such as æ, and cyrillic letters like А and Е

Come on! It's not like there are any super-s3krit techniques here! Impersonation is a well-established tradition on MMORPGs and many BBSs, and the techinques for impersonation and spotting impersonation are well-established. --Carnildo 20:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spaces can also be added or removed (John Smith vs JohnSmith), or nicknames employed (Jimbo Wales vs Jimmy Wales). Nickptar 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And let's not forget varying capitalisation. I think we've got enough for a fairly basic stub here. :-) --W(t) 21:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

• Besides, anybody can look through VIP/Long term alerts and see the tricks made by the "DoppeIganger" vandal to see how that person impersonates users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgotten VfD?

Not really an incident, I know, so apologies in advance (I don't know where else to raise it!). Has Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index been forgotten about? It's been open since 29 May, but hasn't been closed or acted on. I should note that the user who created the article in question has an RfA open against him which includes evidence of sockpuppetry and the repeated use of open proxies, so caution should be exercised in determining whether the votes of anon IPs and new users should be considered. -- ChrisO 21:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. There is a considerable backlog, and so far, even debates as old as May 25 are not all resolved. --Dmcdevit 21:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Okay, I'll see if I can lend a hand to get the backlog down. -- ChrisO 21:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We're up to May 29 now. Any help from admins with closing VfDs is always welcome. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actions made by Argyrosargyrou

After talking to some admins, it was suggested that I bring my issues here. User:Argyrosargyrou has been making unilateral changes to a series of articles connected to the Cyprus dispute. While attempting to talk to him, and restore the original content pending discussions, he attacked me and several other users (see ChrisO, RickK, Kiand and a whole bunch of others for confirmation). I'd like to request that he be blocked pending a resolution to the RfAr against him. Thank you for your time. --Scimitar 22:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's already temporarily blocked (for 24 hrs) for repeatedly deleting other users' comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul despite being warned not to. If I read you correctly, are you asking for an injunction against Argyrosargyrou, presumably barring him from editing articles about Turkey and Cyprus until his RfAr is resolved? If so, that would have to be a decision for the Arbitration Committee. -- ChrisO 22:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually yes I was, but I wasn't sure about correct procedure. The 24-hr block (so I don't have to sit here and watch my user page, and a dozen cyprus-related pages) should be good for now. --Scimitar 22:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do continue to watch those pages, as he's previously used open proxies, mostly in the Far East, to avoid previous blocks. I think this is his third block, or possibly his fourth, in only six weeks of editing - that tells you someting about his style of working on Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 22:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Argyrosargyrou has a new sockpuppet, SaintJerome (talk · contribs). This ID is making the same biased edits that Argyrosargyrou has been making, and I have warned him that if does not desist, I will block him, as well. RickK 01:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

And now CaptainJack (talk · contribs). RickK 05:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:Eyeon and sockpuppet check

I need a sockpuppet check to be performed. Namely, could a developer compare the following users:

• User:Eyeon Contributions
• User:Fecologist Contributions
• User:Niglet contributions
• User:70.177.90.39 contributions

I believe User:Fecologist is a sockpuppet for User:Eyeon because:

• He has only made four contributions to the Wikipedia
• Two of those contributions were towards a revert war currently going on on Feces; one of them was to vote for a poll at Talk:Feces
• HIs fourth contribution was to deny being a sockpuppet on Talk:Feces

I believe User:Niglet to be a sockpuppet for User:Eyeon because:

• User:Niglet appeared on the Wikipedia around the same time as User:Eyeon
• User:Niglet has the same fascination with human solid waste as User:Eyeon
• User:Niglet has supported User:Eyeon in the revert war on Feces
• User:Niglet has made disruptive edits on other pages, some involving human waste: [1]

[2]

I believe User:70.177.90.39 to be a sockpuppet for User:Eyeon because:

• User:70.177.90.39 has the same position as User:Eyeon in the ongoing revery war in Feces
• User:70.177.90.39 has had the same position as User:Eyeon concerning other disruptive edits: [3]

Thank you for your time. Samboy 23:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:70.177.90.39 is definitely Eyeon, because it made an edit that Eyeon signed. I don't have the diff to hand but remember it clearly. I've blocked Niglet and Fecologist. I also blocked Eyeon for violating 3RR at Feces using a sockpuppet. However, I'm now getting angry e-mails from her (a woman's name) insisting that the other accounts are not connected to her, and requesting an IP check. I'm not sure it's worth it, as she might have asked a friend to make the edits for her, which would still make the account a sockpuppet. So I'm not sure whether to assume good faith and unblock Eyeon, or stick with the 3RR block. Any advice from others would be appreciated. See WP:AN/3RR for more details on Eyeon. She is a troublesome editor; what I would call a troll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Keep blocked, as a wise man once said, we put up with far too much nonsense as it is. --W(t) 02:02, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I agree, keep the accounts blocked. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Eyeon_and_User:70.177.90.39 for more evidence of naughty activity (forging votes, sockpuppet use, etc.). And, I'll bet you "she" is really a "he" pretending to be a girl. Samboy 02:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's get an IP check on this matter before doing anything extreme like blocking, and also let's avoid throwing around insults like "trolling" which tend to just fan the flames. Everyking 03:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the right place to request a check from David, is that right? As I said, I'm not sure it's worth David spending his time on, as she could have had a friend make the edits. It's highly unlikely that two new users turned up and independently thought of dashing to Feces to revert to a picture of a human turd. As for the trolling, I agree with Everyking that the term shouldn't be thrown around lightly, but if you look through Eyeon's edits, it's not a bad fit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that there's good reason to expect that it's the same person under the circumstances...if we got an IP check, and it was positive, though, then there would be no issue about the block, and we could be sure it was fair. If it was negative, then maybe it's something like you said, like she got some friends to edit for her...and I'm personally not at all sure that could be defined as sockpuppetry, if they're different people. Nevertheless I think that in either case putting an offensive image in an article deliberately against consensus is problematic and could be an arbitration issue if it keeps up. In my view this is actually (ideally) the kind of thing we shouldn't need to go to arbitration for; if somebody edits in direct defiance of a clear consensus that should be grounds for blocking right there. But I haven't looked at this case myself (not least to avoid having to see the images), so I can't say whether there is a solid consensus or not. Everyking 03:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the block in place unless a consensus develops that I should unblock. Eyeon's already been blocked twice for 3RR on that page recently, so this is characteristic. When I last blocked her, she wrote to me insisting there had only been three reverts, not four, so I had to write up all the diffs for WP:AN/3RR so others could check them, and email her with details - more work. Eventually, she said what she meant by saying there were only three reverts was that, when she reverted for the fourth time, she had slightly reduced the size of the photograph, and so felt that ought not to count. This is the kind of time-wasting she engages people in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

This is not the only time User:Eyeon has lied. E.G.: [4] [5] [6] [7], stuffed ballot boxes: [8] [9] (this second one is a legit vote, of course), and hiding evidence presented against him: [10] Samboy 04:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See also this ArbCom ruling, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.". Radiant_>|< 10:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, well I don't think that makes much sense (theoretically I, or anybody, could get banned for being somebody's sock just because an accuser thinks we have similar editing habits), but in this case the bad behavior is clear regardless of whether there are any sockpuppets. Everyking 11:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • That policy was enforced against CheeseDreams when she got her friend (whose ID I forget now) to make the same edits for her -- they were treated as her violations of block and 3RR, even though it was a different person. RickK 21:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone

User:Trey Stone (talk · contribs) (see list of Trey Stone sockpuppets) refuses to stop vandalizing my comments on Talk:Robert Mugabe (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Robert Mugabe|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He should stop or be blocked. Meanwhile, he is on a spree of making ridiculously POV edits to a series of articles just to bait me, since he knows that I am online. 172 05:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone has been a problem for quite a while...wasn't there an ArbCom ruling against him some time ago? I may be wrong about that. Certainly something should be done about his belligerent POV pushing. Everyking 07:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle. The ArbCom is presently proposing decisions. Radiant_>|< 10:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Trouble on Islam pages

Some of the mideast pages are sinking into chaos because of sockpuppets, anon IPs, and personal attacks, with several pages protected, and editors blocked for 3RR, who just return with different IP addresses.

Involved on the pro-Islam side: Yuber (talk · contribs), BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs), Farhansher (talk · contribs), and Anonymous editor (talk · contribs), also editing as 64.229.171.149 (talk · contribs).

On the anti-Islam side: Enviroknot (talk · contribs) —presumed to be the same person as KaintheScion (talk · contribs) and ElKabong (talk · contribs) — Guy Montag (talk · contribs), PeterChehabi (talk · contribs), and someone posting from a number of IP addresses — .e.g 212.218.64.68 (talk · contribs), 69.57.130.8 (talk · contribs), and 24.3.149.174 (talk · contribs) — who says she's a Muslim woman from Saudi Arabia and hates Islam, supposedly because of the way she was treated. She's called the Muslim editors "Islamist f**ks* [11], and "lying Islamist f**ks", [12], a phrase ElKabong used, and she writes in ElKabong's characteristically vicious way. I blocked some of her IPs for 3RR, but she just keeps coming back.

To get the flavor of the dispute, see all of Talk:Jihad/Archive4 and User talk:SlimVirgin#Yuber and keep going to the end of the page.

I'm going to e-mail David with some sockpuppet enquiries to see if he can pin down who's who. I'm posting here because any help in controlling the outbreak would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pages currently protected because of them:

• Suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qana Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

69.57.130.8 (talk · contribs) and 24.3.149.174 (talk · contribs) (used by the supposed Muslim woman, probably ElKabong) turned out to be anon proxies, so I've blocked them indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's not the only reason those pages are chaotic. I don't think it matters who is who. The behaviour is the problem. Deal with that and forget the personal stuff. I really think that's the right way (even if I'm not always able to do the right thing!). I hold my hands up for my part of the blame. I've been no angel at times. It's a very incendiary area, and it doesn't take much for it to catch fire. But I really believe the good-faith editors have to look at themselves, model the good behaviour we want to see and try to show that there's another road. Of course, you're going to get some trolls who just want the chaos, but if they're not fed, they wither and die. Grace Note 12:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Jihad#Call for comments for preliminary mediation. Inter\^Echo 12:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't very sure who was saying what. The argument on Jihad has gone way beyond anything substantive, it seems. I think your efforts should be applauded though. I think this article is a great case for "source every word". Grace Note 12:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cyberstalking, Harassment, & Dog Posting by SqueakBox

SqueakBox follows me around Wikipedia and vandalizes anything I touch. He tells the lie that I, Rex Judicata, am also Agwiii and has posted this lie in several places. I simply delete the lie. However, the very nature of Wikipedia encourages the behavior of people like SqueakBox. He claims to be a deletionist, but is actually an obsessionist and Cyberstalker.

Law enforcement on the Internet is a challenge for all countries, but we have seen some dramatic events with creators of denial of service, virus, spam, etc. being brought to justice. I am a resident of Florida, and have been an Internet Safety Activist for years.

I have worked to help the passage of Florida 2003 Cyberstalking Law. Those administrators who believe in Wikipedia should question why behavior that is outlawed by Florida (and many other states and countries) would be condoned by Wikipedia. I suggest that this is the case - that Wikipedia allows cyberstalking, harassment and dog posting -- and that it is time for Wikipedia to change.

Questions and comments? Email me at RexJudicata@gmail.com

Signed proudly and accurately by Rex Judicata 13:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

What is this personal attack doing here. RexJudicata (talk · contribs) is Agwiii (talk · contribs) and 66.176.193.185 (talk · contribs) who has alreasdy threatened to deport me to Florida for the crime of disagreeing with him, has impersonated me here and has now again blanked the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RexJudicata. He falsely calls me a vandal, as ever. It is time for this individual to stop harrassing me, SqueakBox 13:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the link on SqueakBox's comment to point to the page he intended. --cesarb 14:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Truth about Squeakbox

Thank you for posting your LIES here.

LIE number 1. Agwiii is not me, not is some foolish set of numbers.

LIE number 2. I have not threatened to deport you to Florida. I don't know where you are nor do I care.

However, I intend to continue to post the truth about you.

Rex Judicata 13:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[multiple edit conflicts] Hmm...I did a little stalking of my own. There is a bad situation here between Agwiii , SqueakBox, and RexJudicata. I am wondering if you might consider applying for mediation with the Mediation Committee. func(talk) 13:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, I am up for it. Yes there is a lot of bad blood between RexJudicata, his sockpuppet Agwiii, and myself since the sock threatened to see me deported to Florida in April in order not to be caught in his sockpuppetry activities. I take his impersonation of me very seriously, SqueakBox 13:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Removes comments from a Vfd here, SqueakBox 14:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

After seeing him remove the same comment 3 or more times, I went ahead and closed that VfD. --cesarb 14:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW: I recall that, when I first encountered this user, I found out about the sockpuppetery buried deep inside the history of Talk:Abortion. I do not have the time to find it again right now, but if I recall correctly it was something like one account signing one comment from the other. --cesarb 14:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's great to know such info can be retrieved as necessary, though given the same MO I hardly think anyone is going to doubt that Agwiii is a RexJudicata sockpuppet. Obsession with me, rapid revert wars with vandalism accusations, writing about me here, repeat planting of the same text in various places, and even twice on the same page, obsession with Florida law, Rex's confession that he shares a copmputer with Agwiii, using the wiord dogposting (by which he means he doesn't like the openness of our community where all edits by all of us are open to public scrutiny), etc, SqueakBox 15:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Have you requested a sockpuppet check to prove your suspicions, Squeakbox? If not, can you post links that show sufficient similarities in edit style? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but give me some tinme as I need to work and it will take a while, but I am sure I can do it, SqueakBox 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

But here are are couple of random quickies. This was a note by Agwiii to Mel Etitis, this is a note by Rex to himself. Note the words dogposting, harrassment and cyberstalking in reference to me. This shows Rex shares an interest in Florida law with Agwiii. Here is Agwiii at Parents without rights with the same POV as Rex in his talk to Wetman. Note the similarity between this and the above section title Cyberstalking, Harassment, & Dog Posting by SqueakBox. The section title is identical. I can provide as lot more if people want, but this should suffice, SqueakBox 16:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

BTW can I ask for a sockpuppet check here on this page for Agwiii and Rex, or do I have to ask elsewhere, SqueakBox 16:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet checks are done by developers. I suggest you ask David Gerard as he's the most active in this field as far as I know. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia breaking the law

RexJudicata has written Those administrators who believe in Wikipedia should question why behavior that is outlawed by Florida (and many other states and countries) would be condoned by Wikipedia. I suggest that this is the case - that Wikipedia allows cyberstalking, harassment and dog posting -- and that it is time for Wikipedia to change. here and I wonder what admins make of it as a statement ultimately addressed to yourselves. Do people think he is accusing wikipedia of breaking US state laws? SqueakBox 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

he is just angry, and seems to be the type that instead of taking a step back and cooling down, wants the whole world to know just how angry he is. We see that a lot on WP I guess. Of course, if you are harassed or what not on WP, the individual harassing you may be breaking the law, not Wikimedia, anymore than your ISP who is serving the harassment to your home. Don't shoot the messenger. dab (ᛏ) 16:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition, SqueakBox wasn't breaking any laws anyway. As an administrator, it's his duty to keep an eye out on certain individuals that are disruptive or in defiance of Wikipedia canon. I will look into the situation myself and comment on the RFC. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Disruption to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamophilia

A user (possibly User:Germen) has posted a link to the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamophilia page on a sympathetic forum with an open call to place keep votes on the page[13]. The page is being flooded with anonymous and sockpuppet keep votes. Axon 17:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, they will be ignored, as is the usual case. Annoying, but not fatal. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:MARMOT

MARMOT (talk · contribs) has suddenly appeared, removing comments from User talk:62.253.96.40 (and calling it "his" page in the edit summary), making complaints about user:Raul654, but mostly defending another anon. at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/64.62.161.12. In all this, he acts in a way that is definitely un-newcomerlike. Any idea who he might be? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do not feed the trolls. RickK 23:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki-stalking problem with User:willmcw

Hello - I would like to ask for assistance regarding a severe wiki-stalking problem I am having with User:willmcw that has gone on for several months now and has worsened in intensity of late. I first encountered this individual on an article several months ago in which we disagreed about the content and had a prolonged discussion of it before resolving the edits on the article's talk page. From that moment until now, Willmcw has been following me around wikipedia, making largely deconstructive changes to virtually every major edit I make and almost all new articles or stubs I create, and providing votes and assistance in support of the opposition to my positions on editing matters where a dispute exists regardless of the nature of that dispute or the subject of its article. It has gotten to the point that I cannot make a major addition to much of anything, or create a new article without Willmcw showing up in short order to deconstruct and rearrange it for no other reason than the fact that I authored it. Many of his edits involve excessive and extreme demands for source citations under threat of removing pertinent material, even when I have already included sources that are more than reasonable. He also frequently misreads sources and links that I have provided and alters the text to reflect these misreadings, almost always in a way that diminishes or removes specific content I have added. More recently he has taken to inserting pejorative and ad hominem qualifier phrases to introduce the sourced materials I add, even when a link is present, as well as removing valid sources for factually correct information when he personally deems them insufficient for use in the article.

I have repeatedly addressed my problems to Willmcw dating back over several months. For some time I did so in a polite manner. I conveyed to him that his habit of following me around wikipedia was excessive, lacked etiquette and civility, and constituted trolling and repeatedly asked him to stop, all the while recognizing that an occasional encounter was not objectionable to me. As his activities intensified I stated my objections to his behavior more vocally and indicated I was willing to seek intervention here if he did not cease trolling. Yesterday I repeatedly asked him to stop wiki-stalking me, to which he responded by accusing me of attacking him personally followed by a continuation of the same.

The evidence of this user's wiki-stalking may be seen in his arrival at articles on virtually all matters of subject, many of them completely unrelated to his interests or expertises, shortly after I have made an edit there and almost always to deconstruct, challenge, harass, undo, or make unreasonable demands of an edit I have made. Others seem preoccupied with him simply getting the "last word" or "last edit" in, as if he feels a need to somehow make a change, regardless of how minor or inconsequential - be it adding a category or flipping the sentence orders - to every article I edit for no other reason than the fact that I edited it previously. He has shown up to do this on almost every single new article I've ever created and most that I've participated in at length on any variety of subjects. Here are just a few of the history pages from where he's shown up shortly after I've made an edit on all number of articles. They show he followed me to each to make changes, both major and minor:

[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54],

This pattern of behavior dates back at least to February of this year. Willmcw has also "arrived" for no particular reason in virtually every major editing disagreement I've been involved in, always to lend his support to whoever I'm in disagreement with regardless of the topic. While, once again, I do not object for this individual to make edits on articles of common interests and even disagree with me. But it becomes a problem when he starts following me around wikipedia for the purpose of making edits to just about every article I've ever contributed to, and throwing fuel on the fire of existing disagreements with other editors. That's intentionally seeking out controversies and fights. That's also trolling and harassment, and I find it deconstructive to wikipedia. Any help or advice on this would be much appreciated. Thanks - Rangerdude 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edited contributions deleted

I spent a few hours contributing various "external links" to one of my websites on different Wikipedia webpages/themes. These links have now been anonymously deleted. In my view at least, this undermines the stated purpose of the Wikipedia dictionary. The users of the Wikipedia dictionary are capable of doing their own filtering of knowledge; the potential universe of the offering should not be filtered before they are able to view it. Otherwise, it would be best to eliminate the "edit" icon of each page/heading, which would have saved me all that time in posting those external links that are now gone. The conceptual idea of everyone "editing" the Wikipedia pages is a good one, in my book, but maybe not a feasible one due to the simplicity and ease with which one can hit the "delete" button. Kudos for the theoretical concept anyway and much success to a good idea.