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

JzG gone again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Trolls have families too, and are delightfully entertaining as illustrations to children's books, but let's be sparing about using the word toward other human beings.

See [1] :( 86.137.127.139 16:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Judging from changes to his essay, something's happened that pushed him over again, and he's asked for desysopping at this point. (Can't figure out if he's received that yet or not.) Sorry to see him go again, but perhaps some time will help him with his concerns, and he'll be back in the future. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's PO'd about the same things that many of the rest of us are PO'd about. Especially the community's insistence on giving disruptive users a second third fourth fifth chance because they might, eventually, someday become constructive users, while holding people who are constructive users to the most exacting standards. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So I'm not the only one tired of the Wikiredemption and Reclamation Project? •Jim62sch• 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's waste a bunch of time on jackass editors, and push away the good ones. Jim, I'm very tired of it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am all for tightening the screws here. Should we allow trolls to make us lose the most committed editors we have? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am deeply saddened at the loss of Guy. He's been a sane voice and a great member of the project, especially when dealing with trolls who others were willing to give a slap on the wrist. I am tired of people interpreting AGF to mean, "beat us, and the project, with a stick and we'll keep smiling about it because, really, lots of people with personality disorders straighten up and become productive contributors if you let them get away with acting like monsters for long enough." I will miss Guy a great deal, and hope he comes back. *shakes head sadly* - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take me as insensitive to the difficulties our sysops face, but why do we need to have an announcement here every time someone deletes his or her userpage? If they have something they would like to say to the community, they can say it themselves. Broadcasting their departure here seems unlikely to be helpful. Can anyone inform me as to the benefits it could have? Picaroon (t) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because JzG did not suck. A bunch of pathetic POV-losers pushed him out the door. So what do you have? A crappy encyclopedia. I'm going to fight back. This pisses me off.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You can start by helping change the rules at WP:CSN so that the decision to ban a user is made by a consensus of uninvolved parties. WP:CSN gets tons of flak, but it's a very useful way to show long-term disruptive users the door. Unfortunately, by allowing the disruptors to participate in establishing a consensus, it often fails. We really need to be more effective at dealing with bad faith users. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman's proposal is under discussion here. Everyone is welcome to opine. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the way that we recompense committed editors? What a pity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah no! JzG is such a great guy...a rock of impartiality. I like knowing that an email to JzG will not yield a reply, but rather a fair result. --Zeraeph 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In that essay linked to above, he writes, "There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it's not serious, that it's only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else." Is all of that true? If so, that is extremely unsettling. How much dangerous is it editing this site? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OM: Me too. I tire of the overuse of the AGF nonsense that forces us to extend some semblence of good faith to a user who has shown himself/herself repeatedly to be nothing more than a tendentious, troublesome, user, or a POV-pusher or a troll. Bah.

Jossi: Apparently it is.

Jehochman: whatever it takes, but see my comment to OM. •Jim62sch• 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alas, hardly a day passes on this noticeboard without an incident of this sort. The current practice of infinitely extending good faith to most odious disruptors at the expense of established editors is a sad testimony to low qualifications of our sysops. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to start fighting back against POV-pushers by adopting the remedies at User:Moreschi/The Plague. That's about nationalism, but most of it applies to all POV-pushing types. Shameless spam, yes. I hope JzG has not given up on WP entirely. There's always the good old right-to-return-via-the-back-door. Moreschi ^Talk 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt your love-fest, but my experience with JzG hasn't been particularly great; in fact, over in the attack sites ArbCom workshop he was saying that I ought to be banned. In my opinion, labeling dissident voices as "trolls" does more damage than the trolls themselves. *Dan T.* 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that JzG's one of the large number of people who dislike (or at the least disagree with) you Dan T. That doesn't make JzG's forcing out any less reprehensible. I'm not saying you're one of the trolls, but don't give them the credit of being "dissidents." Stalking fails to impress me as a "dissident." ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think dan was suggesting that stalking JzG was a good idea. Personally I think that if Guy was more tactful with his language, and restricted himself from calling people names in the first place he might not have got himself into the position of pissing off people so much they felt compelled to harras him in real life. (at no point am I condoning that harassment) In at least some cases like this it appears that the abused wikipedian has been frequently less than civil (ie MONGO), and that pisses some more insane people off to the point of turning to real life harrasment to exact their revenge. Guess what people, Wikipedia is high visibility and therefore attracts some less than savoury people. We can't change that, we just have to deal with it. However if you stop calling people names it makes the wikipedia environment a lot easier for everyone to work in, and you are less likely to attract unwanted attention to yourself. Viridae^Talk 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's certainly not acceptable to drive people away by harassment. But think about it. If I had gotten the treatment that some trolls have gotten from Guy, I would have been pretty annoyed. So before we start blaming everything on the evil trolls, consider if it's all their fault. -Amarkov moo! 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• They're responsible for their own behavior: trying out that argument before a judge -- or a high-school principal -- wouldn't get one very far. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Erm, no, it's not that simple. People repeatedly (and, even in my opinion, sometimes justifiably) excused HIS behavior on the grounds that trolls were annoying him. If we're saying "everyone is responsible for their own behavior", then we can't turn around and ignore that when it comes to some people. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about stalkers, who I don't condone... but I'm talking about how everybody who dares to oppose a few favored people gets tarred with the same brush as the worst of the stalkers, and demonized, and this is used to justify ridiculous policies like banning links to entire sites that meet the disapproval of the clique. *Dan T.* 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody? Dan, I'm the sysop who gave JzG a civility block warning in January. I started Category:Eguor admins afterward to promote self-regulation among sysops. I was perfectly serious about that warning and took some heat for it, but the only folks who tarred me with that great brush are the ones who populate the attack sites you defend. This hyperbole of yours is getting tiresome. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No such block on his block log...? Thanks for the cat, added. Viridae^Talk 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that particular axe sharp enough by now? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here. The real problem is not being nice enough to the trolls? Pathetic. Raymond Arritt 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You insult trolls they will become more troll like - what part are you missing? Follow the civility guidlines (like every admin should) and you are less likely to be come a target.. what is so hard about that? Just because someone trolls you doesnt mean you have to stoop to their level and return the favour - that makes YOU a troll too. Viridae^Talk 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Labeling people as "trolls" when you disagree with them is a way of dehumanizing the opposition and getting your way in whatever dispute you're in. People who throw around "troll" accusations are the ones causing the toxic atmosphere here. *Dan T.* 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, this community demands that people speak in the tones Guy uses. I know I'm better off on Wikipedia now that I assume bad faith--it makes it easier for me. Guy's had a few nasty comments to me in inappropriate situations (on his part, not mine, no matter how hotheaded I've been), but it didn't make me interested in him personally in any way--sure as hell not his home life. And when I needed a quick solution to a problematic BLP, I knew he'd do it. I've opposed the Wikipedia favorite stars, and I still do, and I think there are many problematic admins on Wikipedia because other admins are lazy at dealing with problems with other administrators. And I've been called a troll by various administrators, but I can't really be demonized because I'm here to edit--one silly little editor takes a moment to always come up with some nasty comment about me, but nobody takes it seriously, least of all me. She just looks as silly as she's behaving. I'm not a demon, just a hothead--and I contribute well. If you're being demonized successfully you might not be spending enough time editing articles and doing useful tasks on Wikipedia. You might be spending too much time on intrigue. And there are plenty of real demons to be found among the intriguing little intrigues all over Wikipedia. I've never had an interesting troll on my page. KP Botany 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I want to say how sorry I am to see that Guy has left. He was one of our best admins, and people with Guy's common sense and intelligence are thin on the ground. I know that the silent majority on Wikipedia don't support the harassment and toxic atmosphere that causes admins like Guy to leave, and I hope you'll start to speak out against it. Write to Jimbo, no matter how pointless you feel it is. Write to Anthere, the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please make your voices heard. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has had epic battles with Guy, can I just suggest we close this thread and let him be? He's stated his unhappiness with how things are here, let's just respect that and let him decide what is best for himself. This kind of thread can serve no good purpose: those who hated Guy come out of the woodwork to reopen wounds, while those who liked him get all worked up into a frenzy and beg him to stay - neither of which helps Guy or the project. ATren 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. Wikipedia's OFFICE doesn't do enough to protect good editors, and bad editors demand we AGF beyond credulity on a weekly, if not daily or hourly, basis. We get absurd POV warriors demanding things no civilized human would demand, and when they don't get their way, they offer to attack our children. We lost H to that, and no one stopped the hostile parties involved; in fact, we welcomed them back with special concessions to their POV. In return, they've bullied all over the place. IT gets ridiculous to AGF when people ignore discussions, notifications, requests and warnings. IF it's on their talk page, they demand it be kept on the article talk, where they can ignore it in the name of WP:BOLD. Guy's loss is a big one to the project. THe threats he's recieved need to be brought to the attention of Jimbo Wales, and frankly, he ought to DO something. The 'This is the internet, it's not REAL LIFE' meme only lasts till some troll takes it to the real world, posting names, addresses and phone numbers, along with exhortations to rape their wives and children, which at least a few offended parties here have done or attempted. Until the OFFICE shows that they will support the good over the bad, this will continue. Wales needs to make discipline a presence here, it's not here now. When the pro-pedophilia tribes coem on demanding we never address Pedophilia as a disease of the mind, or as a crime, and PJ comes on offering to 'out', to the police, and the jobs, of any editor who doesn't cave to their demands, no one except those two dares touch the articles related to that topic. and so on, across many of the religion articles, gun articles, and so on. If it hasn't happened yet, it's only a matter of time till some editor is hunted down and killed for defending core principles of NPOV and Citation on Wikipedia, by some deranged extremist(s). The OFFICE and the Bureaucrats can do more, but don't, instead insisting 'the community can handle this'. No, when editors are harrassed off jobs, leave the project, and find harrassments continuing despite their abdication of the project, what else can be done? This is becoming an untenable situation. I hope soemthing can be done to resolve the attacks on Guy that led him to this; he's a strong admin, and a much-needed one, as he's long been willing to take on hard topics here. ThuranX 05:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But ThuranX, surely you should know that if someone threatens harm, it's only because they were driven to it because someone called them a troll. Anyone can see it's the so-called victim's fault.</end sarcasm mode>. Raymond Arritt 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Don't get me started on the similar abuse of the CIVILITY policy. CIVIL and AGF get invoked by the biggest trolls with a frequency appraoching a Godwin proportion, that it, as one can perceive, if not factually derive an algorithm regarding the parallels of Naziism invocation and futility of further discussion, so can one find a relationship between the frequency and immediacy in any conversation of AGF/CIVIL and the trollish nature of the invoker. CIV and AGF are good principles to keep in the back of one's mind, but the difference between bluntly calling a fool or jerk what he is, and calling anyone you don't like the ideology of a troll are different, and the project and community both would do well to have a far stricter policy on both. Possibly a policy called WP:CRYWOLF, which can be invoked during incident reports, mediations and arbitrations to ban someone who repeatedly brings frivolous 'violations' to admin attention. Even Good Faith reporters who are just too sensitive should be subject to the brief blocks CRYWOLF would demand, thus ensuring that people too milquetoast to be here leave, and that those who still want to be here start thinking twice. 'Fuck You, [minority slur]' is a violation, 'you're too liberal/conservative to understand what I'm saying and can't look at this from any view but your own' is 99% of the time here a fact, not an insult. (well, maybe both, but deserved). Such a 'don't waste our time' policy might help us all. ThuranX 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, has anyone actually said that everything here is his fault for not being nice? -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, noone is suggesting that it was all Guys fault. We are suggesting he and certain other people who have been harassed have exacerbated the situation to the point it got to by being extremely incivil. Nor is anyone suggesting good faith should be taken with regard to these said trolls - if they clearly are here to do ahrm, so be it abandon good faith. However civility should NEVER be abandoned regardless who you are dealing with. Viridae^Talk 05:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The loss of civility is the loss of effective communication that can possibly lead to a resolution of dispute etc.. Remember that, even when dealing with trolls. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, your use of sarcasm above plainly demonstrates the problem here. Never consider an balanced response, simply heed your emotions and witty sarcasm to remedy all situations. HydroMagi 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry; believe it or not, that was out of character for me. I'm just getting more and more disgusted at the insistence on giving near-limitless chances to trolls, POV-pushers, abusive sockpuppeteers and outright lunatics while refusing to stand up for the highly constructive (if imperfect) editors who are their targets. Raymond Arritt 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The lunatics are definitely running the asylum these days.--MONGO 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to the fullest. People who research and continuously add information to the project should not be driven off or harassed by people who come here to disrupt the encyclopedia or do naught for the encyclopedia. It's a waste of time for all parties involved. M.^(er) 08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of admins and experienced users who have put their careers, their reputations and good names, in some cases their personal safety and privacy on the line fighting for and defending this Project. When has this Project ever defended us? The arbcom is out of touch, the board is a joke, the foundation, toothless and inept. This is endemic of much larger issues, mainly that the hippie peace and love bullshit Jimbo espouses DOES NOT WORK, that AGF is broken, and that maybe, just maybe, letting anons edit, and putting so many restrictions on administrative discretion is not a good thing. This project treats us like shit, yet we fight for it tooth and nail. We are lucky we haven't lost more like Guy, and unless something is done, we will lose more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the project needs more admins like me, who have absolutely no career, reputation or good name. Edison 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to help! Secretlondon 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffrey's every word here, including "and" and "the". ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You have the choice to leave or attempt to change it. Viridae^Talk 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A rock and a hard place? You're too kind! :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well making a choice is better than just bitching about it. Viridae^Talk 09:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the problem is that punitive actions against editors are often based on specific actions rather than intentions. A seemingly well-meaning editor who accidentally goes over 3RR shouldn't be treated the same way as a POV-pusher doing the same. Policy doesn't seem to make any distinction at all. Perhaps if those who spend the majority of their time on Wikipedia distruptively editing a specific point of view into a single group of articles were treated more harshly, the program JzG describes would not be as big as it is now. If someone comes to Wikipedia to push a specific POV, they should not be treated the same as someone who comes to improve the encyclopedia. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 09:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dark Shikari has got to the heart of the problem. We're fine at dealing with vandals and drive-by trolls but the persistent POV-pushers and other determinedly obnoxious characters take ages to remove - and they're the very people who are the biggest threat to the encyclopaedia. --Folantin 12:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Typical situation: I find a COI, POV pushing or spam-only account. It's never made a productive edit. It's purpose is mischief and nothing else. I ask for a perma-block at one of our boards, and get the typical, "we need four separate warnings in a week" response. Long ago I learned to go to specific admins who understand how to deal with persistent troublemakers. We need to educate our admins how to deal with these situations, because a majority of them don't understand, and that's extremely frustrating to ordinary editors on the front lines. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, well I am not even a good editor though I try my best to do the best I can with my disabilities but has anyone tried to contact JzG via email to see what is going on in his mind about things? I have been following this thread from the beginning and find it quite disturbing to see people blaming this administrator about things including his behavior. For the record, as far as I can remember I have not had any contact with this administrator. I just feel I needed to comment because of the back and forth of trying place blame. Would, could someone email this person and see what is going on? I think the least we can all do is let him/her know that this discussion is going on. But more important, I think everyone first should see if he blanking his page means he left (maybe he plans a redo?) and then maybe see what is going on and see if he can be helped to resolve the situation (s). If my comments are inappropriate, please feel free to remove. I just feel that something is missing here in the details of things. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no point calling a troll anything other than a troll. It solves plenty of problems. I agree with both Folantin and Dark Shikari. We are not flexible enough when dealing with POV-pushers. Single-purpose accounts who are also obvious socks, like MatthewHoffman below, need to be kicked into touch permanently, and straight away. Single-purpose accounts who are not socks (just morons recruited off forums, and yes, this does happen) need to be brutally topic-banned to within an inch of their lives and told in no uncertain terms to get away from their area of manic obsession ASAP. Good content contributors who do the invaluable work on the ground, and who are not POV-pushing, need to be rewarded with sysop buttons. Nationalist, pseudoscience, whatever - the two are often linked - the plague needs to be eradicated. If we do not adequately protect Wikipedia and those who seek to maintain it, we will pay a bitter price. Moreschi ^Talk 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help sympathizing with JzG's predicament. It is no secret that I have lately been more active in Russian Wikipedia than here, and the reason is that apathy sets in when you see the same fights persisting for two or three years without any prospect of resolution. Two days ago, I was called "a troll without a specific gender" and the same person demanded on this noticeboard to have me blocked from editing indefinitely. Once an admin reproached him for abusing the noticeboard, all the hell broke loose on him for not extending good faith to the block shopper. A week earlier, an unfamiliar editor referred to me as a "paranoid goon" but, once I asked for an explanation from him, my message was deleted from the talk page and replaced with a Piotrus-presented barnstar for "good deeds". I don't want to continue this screed here, but all the signs are not encouraging, to put it mildly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The general rule of nature is that the larger that population, the less time one can afford to give people to disrupt the whole. I think we need to continue to assume good faith, but take a very hard line when it becomes unreasonable to do so. People think "Assume good faith" means to give someone with bad motives another chance. That is not what it means. It means to assume good motives till it is unreasonable to do so, it has nothing to do with "second chances", only with judging motivations. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How does judging people's motivations fit in with WP:NPA's "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? *Dan T.* 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

People who are disruptive due to inexperience or accident are not a problem, these people can be reformed and help out, no harm done. People who are disruptive due to malice are unlikely to be reformable. The failure to distinguish between the two is why we put up way too much with jackasses who are only here to be shit disturbers. WilyD 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, our RfA process doesn't seem to favor good editors, nor those who fight to protect Wikipedia. Instead, it favors those who go along with the group and don't make waves. Elonka was denied adminship because she took positions on contentious issues and made enemies who harbored grudges. One of them is stalking the articles about her family members right now. People, we need to understand that honorable folks can have lively disagreements, but that's not a valid reason to deny sysop rights, nor is it a reason to persecute an administrator. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I share the ethos of this comment, truth be told, I feel that Elonka is herself engaged in a campaign against such a productive editor as User:PHG, unjustly accusing him of original research and fringecruft across multiple venues. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the first step here is to propose a rewording of policy. Perhaps a bit of the spirit of WP:DUCK should be combined with WP:AGF. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The sheer tediousness and waste of time / digital ink involved in getting obvious troublemakers banned means that we need productive editors like Guy, and to keep them a bit less tolerance of disruptive editing is needed. One improvement might be redefining WP:TROLL – by stating that "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts" we have to be a mind reader to use the designation, when actions make it obvious per WP:SPADE. Trolling is behaviour, not a state of mind. ... dave souza, talk 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • • Excellent point and well put. I've been bold; let's see what happens. Raymond Arritt 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I've reverted. I'm not sure this is the time and place, but though I am sad that Guy has left again, this is a lousy excuse for starting to form up a vigilante committee to label a bunch of good-faith editors who happen to hold dissenting opinions as trolls and drive them away. We have to find the middle ground between burning out our experienced active admins and driving away new and positive but honestly disagreeing editors. Either exteme is disaster. Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Holding a good-faith dissenting opinion is not trolling. Be wary of tainted fish. Raymond Arritt 03:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, once again, as a user who JzG recently said ought to be banned, I need to object to any such proposal as a possible target of it, once policy no longer distinguishes between intentional troublemakers and people like me who hold strong views and stand up for them. *Dan T.* 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Someone who has not established themselves as a Wikipedian here to help Wikipedia who pushed against BADSITES the way *Dan T.* has would have been banned by now, and that is how it must be given our extreme openness to anon editing. But even an established editor like Jon Awbrey was able to get himself banned by pushing too hard too fast too unsuccessfully even after repeated warnings; and that too is how it should be. Good faith gained by lots of effort should require lots of effort to dissipate. WAS 4.250 05:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another staunch defender of the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has been lost. Their ranks are shrinking by the day. I no longer have much hope for this project. FCYTravis 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He was a great editor and administrator, and his roles in defending the quality of Wikipedia users and articles was greatly appreciated. It's a shame that it has had to turn out this way, much like many others, and it gives me little faith in the administrative roles when they are be-whittled in this manner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not find User:JzG on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. He seemed to often stick his nose into conflicts with an us/them attitude rather than looking for reconciliation (that seems to be what got him on Mr. Brandt's list). His comments were often banal. My advice: do not give him sysop bit back. Let him go through another RfA if he wants it. Really, he should just start a new account, start fresh and create some featured-quality articles and keep his nose out of other people's disagreements. He was a busybody and he should strive for change within himself. My prediction is that he will be back, but when he does come back, he should focus on creating quality content, on his lonesome if he cannot collaborate. There are still plenty of dead British nobles from centuries ago that deserve FA articles. Emsworth did not get them all. Let the man be non-political and productive for a while and see how he fares then.--RidinHood25 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... It's like field of dreams... if you open a section, trolls will come. JzG is/was an invaluable mem ber of this project. those that think otherwise seem mostly to be of the sour grapes variety, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is more articles about the English Noble relatives of editors, like all those Arbuthnot articles. really. We need more FA's on varied topics. ThuranX 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we need more FA's in a variety of subjects. But what did JzG accomplish in his tenure? He deleted some stuff and blocked some users. Anybody can do that. Did he create anything? Did he write policy? What did he do? It is a sincere question. BTW: I do not personally value specialized vandal fighters because everybody is a vandal fighter after a certain point. Did he just pal around with you guys and that made you feel good? That does not count. What did he produce? Where is his name on some text that is valuable and relevant?--RidinHood25 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you have not been here very long. And judging by your extremely short contribution history and tenure, I am correct on that. Unless you had some prior socks or IPs engaging in some edit war with Guy, which your first comments seemed to indicate, you really have no idea what kind of contributions that Guy produced. He was invaluable to Wikipedia, and did much more than "deleted some stuff and blocked some users." An administrator has many roles that expand far outside of that, and often go unnoticed or unappreciated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I find your enumerations of JzG's scholarly legacy to Wikipedia to be vague to the point of being insufficienct and unacceptable.--RidinHood25 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as Guy not being involved in policy you may want to reconsider that remark. Guy did all the things you and I would never do. He took the flack when he had to so that we wouldn't have to worry about it, he spent a considerable amount of time dealing with spammers over e-mail etc. - stuff you really can't tell from his edit history alone. I for one can easily understand why he lost his temper sometimes. EconomicsGuy 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am curious, what have been your contacts RidinHood25 to be so down on JzG? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• "There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it's not serious, that it's only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else."

This sort of garbage is why I don't do much involving disputes other than newpages patrol. You never know when someone's going to contact their internet h4x0r friendz and have them call your job saying you do all sorts of nasty things on the clock, or 5000 people ordering you pizzas, hookers, and hookers holding pizzas 24 hours a day, harassing you at your house, plastering your personal information all over the internet, over something that happened on a website. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

user:RidinHood25

User:JzG is the real-life operator of http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ and is living out loud on the Internet. His real name is and will be well-known on this Earth for the rest of his life. He has created for himself an ample public forum for his opinions. If he has a wife and kids who perceive that they suffer because of the level of publicity he garners for himself both on the Internet and via Wikipedia, then he should find the correct balance of publicity vs. privacy by discussing the matter with them. If he is concerned about making new enemies via his Wikipedia admin actions, then he should follow the advice I gave earlier: start a new Wikipedia account and remain anonymous. Anyone who has examined the Usenet activities of Mr. Wales and David Gerard (who have done a large amount of flicking of the "OFF" switch on others) and such (see Mr. Brandt's list if nothing else) knows that the Internet is populated by a lot of teenaged-minded people: optimistic but immature. The occasional idle death threat simply comes with the territory. It is akin to a video game. Verbally blast away, game over and start again. Here is a recent example: User:Husnock, US Naval officer and historian gets frustrated with User:Morwen and types in something. Morwen contacts the US Navy's equivalent of the FBI (http://www.ncis.navy.mil/). See his RfAr. JzG pipes in and labels the matter "farcical". My opinion: Morwen is not a nice person and JzG should mind his own business. JzG and Morwen have stopped participating in Wikipedia. Let them both come back via new accounts. As far as Husnock is concerned, I would rather he come back via a new account, but I expect that he is so burned by the matter that there is no chance of him ever returning (at least while he remains married). He is a officer of the U.S. Navy and has more important matters to deal with. The rest of us who remain should focus our ample disposable time and energy on creating quality content in the encyclopedia.--RidinHood25 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I find Ridinhood25's comments in general, and his total restatement of everything that pushed JzG off to be more than just sour grapes, he's into full on harrassing troll territory now, and I for one would like to see him blocked for restating the very same information that helped intimidate JzG off the project. His casual dismissal of the threats and attacks suffered by Wikieditors shows him to sympathize with, if not fully be complicit in the attackers actions. This sort of 'JzG got what he deserved' attitude, dismissal of his contributions, and selfish justification attitude are bad enough, restating all JzG's info for all to find is way past the line. ThuranX 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment, and concur with the course of action proposed by ThuranX. Some people say the word troll is overused and often deployed in situations unecessarily - not in this case. He's crossed over the border from the Republic of Polite Criticism via Sourgrapeville into Troll Country. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You know the adage: Give somebody a hammer, and suddenly everything that sticks out starts looking like a nail. Give admins the ability to block others and... Geez, look at JzG's input on that Husnock thing. He starts out by deprecating what Husnock and Morwen were probably feeling and then goes straight into suggesting that blocks will solve the problem. Mature people understand what happened: human feelings happened. Husnock is GONE is and he is NEVER coming back. Morwen pulled some huge and unecessary power moves. When was the last time any of you suggested "Let's just let this guy have his turn to provide input to the collaboration process." I just ignore idle death threats. Blocks also. You should try it sometime and liberate yourself from self-defeating patterns of thought.--RidinHood25 02:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Please note that Wizardman closed this, but upon request for a resolution to RidinHood25's behavior, self-reverted the archiving. He stated on my talk that he believed that the user had already been blocked, and had mis-read the last couple lines. He opted not to enforce the block himself, but I infer from his re-opening that he felt it's worth review and follow up. ThuranX 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will also endorse a block on this weak trolling attempt and weak wikistalking attempt. The user, RidinHood25, has relatively few edits for his short tenure, and it makes me wonder if this user is evading another block elsewhere, perhaps from an IP address. For such a new user to come thrusting out with comments regarding Guy/JzG is quite unusual. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if he's evading a block or not but for someone who created his account 6 days ago, makes a bunch of essentially null edits and then comes here I would say this is an obvious sock. Why is he so consumed with the whole Husnock case? That was back in 2006, not the first thing one would stumble across if reviewing Guy's edits here as a new user. EconomicsGuy 05:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He also made nearly 100 edits to Lyndon LaRouche, which is another favorite article of a few banned users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RidinHood25 is obviously a returning user, familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia referencing and bureaucracy. He also appears to be impatient, demanding that editors, including myself, stop "hogging" an article by ceasing editing it for six months.[2] (I've edited that article on three times). Whatever the deal is with this user, he appears to have a chip on his shoulder and doesn't seem to understand the nature of collaboration. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I was just going on what http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/Patrick_M._Byrne reports (it was mentioned in WP:SIGNPOST this past week). I think what it attempts to measure is who are the people who wrote the greatest percentage of the current verion's text. Will Beback did not make many edits, but he showed up as #4 on the list (ignoring the IP user) and suggested that they buzz off because they have obviously had their turn at that article. I just listed the top four users based on that tool and emphasized that reverting by some of them was going on. My point was that the article probably says what these four users want it to say, but others should be allowed to collaborate. I have made many edits to that article (which were summarily reverted) but I have (currently) not altered the text at all: I've only worked on cleaning up the shitty references, many of which were raw or unlabeled or undated links. I am doing a lot of scutwork but I have yet to have any editorial input. Anyway, at least the references on that article no longer obviously suck, and I have made some editorial suggestions on the talk page. Enough about me: back to JzG now unless the matter is all talked out.--RidinHood25 05:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A new user does not jump to the signpost within days of signing up. You are also not subscribed to it judging by your small talk page history, so I highly doubt you saw it "mentioned" on the signpost. Usually, a new editor is more concerned with the editing basics and doing some general cleanup, not taking themselves in on the history of a topic from last year. Furthermore, I can't find any mention of Patrick in last week's (or the week prior) Signpost.

As for "shitty references", that's a pretty poor choice of words. Per WP:CITE, it is still a valid citation, although it encourages other editors that are more familiar with the citation method to come in and fill them out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been caught out, Ridinhood.. now how about that block? Anyone? DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:RidinHood25 indefinately as a sockpuppet of a banned user. I don't know who they may be a sockpuppet of, If anyone wants to unblock, I will not reblock.-gadfium 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess, but this edit may be a clue? Also wondering about notability of the related article. WikiMapia has had a bit of activity by the user as well. - jc37 10:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

His proposed edits in Patrick Byrne (see the talk page there) were the same as those carried out by Onomato about a week ago. --Samiharris 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the oft used argument that users who are familiar with Wikipedia's intricacies while also have little to no contributions is a very poor stretch of logic. I have hardly contributed, but I am fascinated by this discordian project, so I have ample ability to quote policy and delve the deepest depths of information contained here in. HydroMagi 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hydro: Logic is low on the priority list of these Wales-wannabes. For these teenagers, blocking first and thereby winning is what matters to them. Wales started it all by axing Sanger and then promoting himself as the sole founder of Wikipedia® when obviously Sanger created Wikipedia's initial exponential growth, but since these teenagers have the attention span equivalent to a small fraction of the length of a TV commercial, Wales is prevailing in promoting his big lie.--Simongar 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Another pretty obvious sock. Templated as such and awaiting a visit by an admin with a block hammer. EconomicsGuy 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. HydroMagi (talk · contribs) has eight edits total, and Simongar (talk · contribs) has just slightly more. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Hydro is another user. His edits are spread over several months. He may indeed just lurk a lot and only edit occasionally. Simongar is beyond doubt a sock. Created after the others were blocked, using the same arguments (the Sanger argument is also found in RidinHood25's edit to the Essjay controversy article. EconomicsGuy 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're proving my point Seicer. I seek not attention or even discourse with any of you. I find this project fascinating for my own reasons and I follow it intently. That I choose not to contribute is not a rationale for my being a sockpuppet or a ban evader, I am neither. What I represent is a dissenting voice that you can so conveniently pigeon hole because of my level of contributions. My opinions will control less clout because of this, but my words are not any less true. HydroMagi 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

HydroMagi I don't believe that you are another user. You are right that the duck test should be used with caution. However, as for Simongar there are too many things that do not add up. The order in which the accounts have been used today and the simular arguments regarding issues that aren't known to a new user. The rant about the Husnock case is the strongest evidence in that regard. EconomicsGuy 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a particularly good reason why this thread shouldn't be marked for archiving? At this point it appears to be descending into a trollfest/philosophical debate that doesn't particularly require any admin action.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No objections. There is nothing here we can't eventually deal with at WP:SSP. EconomicsGuy 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random

Mrs random (talk · contribs), Yeshivish (talk · contribs), Truest blue (talk · contribs), LAZY 1L (talk · contribs), Miamite (talk · contribs), AmerHisBuff (talk · contribs), and Macallan 12 (talk · contribs) are all the same, demonstrated by CheckUser. All have have at some time of another been used for double voting and/or reverting to each other. Administrator action is requested. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposed. MER-C 09:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't fork discussions, again, please.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrs random has admitted in an e-mail to me that he/she is behind all of those usernames, and "[He/she doesn't] really have a problem being banned because [he/she is] wasting too much time on WP." The only thing is that he/she has requested that the userpages be deleted, but I don't think that is the case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Request is in to ArbCom for ruling. -- Avi 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I've been e-mailed by one of the above (LAZY 1L) claiming that he/she is not involved. I'm not sure what to think - on my RfA this user did vote in the opposite way to two of the other suspected socks. I guess it is possible for it to be a shared IP address, such as at a Yeshiva or Kollel. Anyway, just thought I should bring it to your attention. Number 57 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrs random said that they were all her.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre. Oh well, I shall report if I hear any more from LAZY. Number 57 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction with a partial quote from a recently received e-mail: "[Mrs random], personally, have sockpuppeted, but there is an actual person behind each username. The other usernames may be guilty of, at the most, meatpuppetry." I'm not sure how checkuser evidence showing the same person is behind the accounts counts for that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Shared computer in a dorm room may be the most likely explanation. -- Avi 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've had another e-mail from LAZY, saying that all the "users" know each other and did request votes on AfDs - though LAZY points out again he/she voted the other way in at least one discussion. Number 57 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Being that the above users do seem to have learned from this, and, I believe, are unlikely to sock/meat again, I think we can extend m:Right to vanish here. While it "does not necessarily" extend to socks; it is not forbidden either. I believe there are enough of us who frequent the articles that were affected that we would recognize an illegal return of sockpuppetry. -- Avi 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions with no warning

I don't think it's fair for an admin to delete an image without explanation, and then threaten me with blocking when I upload it again due to the lack of any such explanation. Specifically, User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, whose attitude when I questioned him about that courtesy was "Deal with it". His viewpoint (now archived or deleted from his talk page) is that unless I get all the facts exactly right the first time, he has the right to zap it without explanation. I'm used to attitudes like that from users, but not from admins. It's as if User:Tecmobowl had been reincarnated as an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. If you still feel the image should remain despite the policy points I kindly pointed out to you, you may go to deletion review. The content from my talk page is of course not deleted: here it is. In the history. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My complaint is not about whether it meets or fails to meet deletion criteria, it's about deletion with no warning or explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the specifics of this particular situation, but all across Wikipedia, there has been a sudden increase in NF image zapping going on due to concerns over what constitutes fair/minimal use. This might be a part of that. You Can't See Me! 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I'm glad Jeffrey provided a link to the discussion of the deletion. Your claim of his high handed, rude behavior would have been hard to believe, otherwise. I am amazed that such arbitrary, peremptory behavior is acceptable from an admin, when it would be considered incivility on the part of any other user. And it amazes me he actually told you to reconsider your participation in the project if you don't like the way he dealt with this situation. Jeffrey owes you an apology, at the very least. Jeffpw 06:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell at Image:Wrigley1945composite.JPG, it is a collage of three images. The first license chosen was related to US Stamps. The third image is a stamp, but the first two images were a problem. They came from Google Images and they didn't identify what URL they came from. So, it was deleted for not identifying the source. Then, the user who started the topic restored the image and added a pd-self tag and now we are here. I suggest a deletion review, but until the other two images are cited with an source or author, let's not restore the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The first image is equivalent to a picture in a 1951 book that I have. I don't recall if I used the scan or if I used an equivalent Google image, as it was a year and half ago or more. The second was definitely a Google image. The third was a scan I made of a postage stamp. The point here is not whether it's a valid fair use, but that it was twice deleted without comment (by who knows who?), and the third time with a vague comment, plus the admin's claim that he has the right to delete anything that he interprets as a rule violation without first discussing it with the one who uploaded it. My complaint is about his autocratic and threatening behavior in the matter, not about whether the image qualifies as fair use. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have deleted it too. Google Images isn't a source, it's a search engine. There's no indication as to where two of the three images in the composite are from. --Carnildo 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point. It's not about whether the image is valid. It's about deleting it without having the courtesy to say "we're about to delete your image". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually with copyright violations, we delete on sight. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Every fair use photo is, by definition, technically a copyright violation. And in this case you're talking a picture that's 60 years old or more, and I'm claiming fair use for a specific article, for specific reasons, as per the fair use criteria. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. A valid fair use of a copyrighted work is not a copyright violation, at least not in the US. It is using a copyrighted work, but it is emphatically not a copyright violation or copyright infringement. Natalie 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Two issues here, Baseball Bugs. First off, Jeffrey is right. It is clearly fair use replaceable and its source was unidentified. You shouldn't have just kept uploading it. The other issue is Jeffreys' attitude: Jefferey, you need to be more polite. Baseball is right: you do have a "screw you" attitude, and being courteous is not an option. I notice you have lost your adminship over similar issues in the past (including talk page blankings). I suggest you pay attention to what ArbCom had to say to you. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First, if someone had bothered, the first time, to tell me what the issue was, instead of blindly deleting it, I would have taken a different course of action than blindly uploading it again. Second, I thought my fair use explanation was adequate, and no one bothered to comment on that, either. Also, I would like to hear someone explain just how these images are "replaceable". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Short answer to your last question: "replaceable" means there could theoretically be a free alternative. Natalie 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what the word means. And in my experience here, all too often, people with no knowledge of the subject at hand, nevertheless jump to that conclusion... as with this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

POV forks, Dokdo and East Sea

A suspected sockpuppet of Fixersfixers is creating POV forks for Dokdo and East Sea. They are using multiple accounts, to vandalize these articles.--Endroit 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the culprits so far:

• Fixersfixers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indef blocked)
• VANKassociation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Listream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fixingpeople‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indef blocked)

--Endroit 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked them all as obvious sockpuppets used to evade the original Fixersfixers block. — TKD::Talk 06:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action.--Endroit 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Another obvious sockpuppet, Beautifulshout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), appeared just now and proceeded to vandalize admins' user pages, so I've filed a checkuser request to see whether there are any common underlying IPs that can be blocked. — TKD::Talk 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing sock puppetry from indef blocked AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Range block applied

Hello. I'm enquiring about the advantages of putting a range block in place on this user's IP address. They have been indefinately blocked for using a multiple of socks (see here for history, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK (3rd) and there are a variety of other cases with this user under different names).

I was wondering whether a range block would be effective against countering this recurring vandal; they vandalise 15-20 different articles on each IP a day and change IPs everyday, sometimes twice in one day. I'm not sure page protection would really be useful in this situation anymore (it has been implemented before to no avail) as they vandalise so many different articles. I have collected all of the IP's he has used so that something can be done.

Seraphim ^Whipp 10:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much collateral damage a range block will incur.

 inetnum:        87.160.0.0 - 87.186.159.255 
 netname:        DTAG-DIAL21 
 descr:          Deutsche Telekom AG 
 country:        DE 
 admin-c:        DTIP 
 tech-c:         DTST 
 status:         ASSIGNED PA 

Navou ^banter 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to only block the 87.167... range? He only seems to be assigned IPs with that particular prefix.

Seraphim ^Whipp 14:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's still 65,536 IP's, or /16 rangeblock; the largest we can give IIRC. -- Avi 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... how about if it was narrowed further to 87.167.200... to 87.167.255...? He has only been assigned IPs in that range. The earliest IP address he used was in February so the range hasn't changed since then. I'm seeing now the gravity of a range block, but at the same time I really don't know what other measures could be put in place.

Seraphim ^Whipp 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you have narrowed it down to 14,336 IP's:

• The 2048 between 87.167.200.0 and 87.167.207.255
• The 4096 between 87.167.208.0 and 87.167.223.255
• The 8192 between 87.167.224.0 and 87.167.255.255

Is it possible to narrow the range down a bit more? Anonblock rangeblocks have been given out, even /16 versions, but if we can restrict it a bit more it would be helpful. -- Avi 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've collected as many IPs as I possibly can and made this list in a show/hide box so it won't clog up the page. Maybe it could be narrowed further to 87.167.204.0 to 87.167.255? Seraphim ^Whipp 10:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Full range of IP's used
87.167.204.34
87.167.207.20
87.167.207.84
87.167.207.145
87.167.210.109
87.167.210.141
87.167.210.200
87.167.211.93
87.167.211.197
87.167.212.188
87.167.213.156
87.167.215.209
87.167.216.175
87.167.219.140
87.167.220.165
87.167.221.57
87.167.221.241
87.167.225.43
87.167.225.84
87.167.226.24
87.167.226.119
87.167.228.83
87.167.230.62
87.167.230.242
87.167.231.59
87.167.235.3
87.167.235.7
87.167.235.161
87.167.236.61
87.167.236.109
87.161.237.219
87.167.240.60
87.167.241.160
87.167.242.147
87.167.242.222
87.167.244.183
87.167.245.5
87.167.245.44
87.167.245.103
87.167.247.95
87.167.249.137
87.167.249.151
87.167.250.222
87.167.252.64
87.167.253.249
87.167.254.235
87.167.255.129

The contiguous range from 87.167.204.34 to 87.167.255.129 is still 12,896 IP's and would take 16 separate blocks, as opposed to the 3 to cover the 14,336. I'll put in an anon rangeblock for a little while for the latter option, and let me know if the vandalism significantly slows down. Good Luck. -- Avi 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for all your help and for being so patient :-). Seraphim ^Whipp 01:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing Harassment by Matt57

Some time ago Matt57 and Elonka got into a dispute over images of Muhammad. Matt57 hasn't been able to let go. After Elonka's unsuccessful Rfa (which I supported, and he opposed), Matt57 has been harassing Elonka by attempting to delete articles about her family members. He's editing tendentiously, in spite the fact that several uninvolved editors and administrators have asked him to find something else to do. This eventually led to a recent exchange on Durova's talk page where Matt57 was disrupting, badgering and generally being incivil. I warned him very politely, as did Durova, and his response was this ugly rudeness. RfA blackballing is a disgusting tactic that should not be tolerated. "Agree with me, or I'll vote against you," has a chilling effect on editors and harms the encyclopedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, please leave your bad faith accusations of harrassment and incivility aside. I asked Durova for an opinion on Jan Czarnowski, she said she didnt want to give one and I didnt ask her again. Whats the big deal now? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading through that exchange, I don't think "I asked Durova for an opinion on Jan Czarnowski, she said she didnt want to give one and I didnt ask her again" really adequately describes what you were actually doing there. I have zero involvement here, but from reading that link it sure looks like you are fishing for a reaction from Durova (essentially demanding she AFD an article) rather than asking a good faith question. Your response to Jehochman (talk · contribs) was fairly inappropriate as well. Perhaps it is time for you to disengage. Beyond that I'll simply add that asking others to assume good faith is predicated on you yourself actually trying to do that as well.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disengaged already. Jehochman and Durova raised a fuss over nothing. I was threatened two times again with a block all over this. I had already said there that I wont ask Durova again to evaluate the article since she didnt want to, so I did disengage. They responded very nicely with threatening blocks. So again, I dont get the fuss. I should have been the one to complain of them harrassing me because being threatened with blocks like this over nothing, is harrassment. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. What precipitated this exchange was a complaint Matt had posted to Jimbo's talk page, essentially in the same vein that a variety of impartial and experienced Wikipedians have been asking him to stop for months. I shouldn't have to say no three times, followed by a warning to complain to ANI, for Matt to lay off. And he didn't lay off - he just went over to Jehochman and tried to intimidate an excellent editor because Jehochman had supported me. If it weren't for the fact that the action could be construed as bias, I would have blocked Matt57 for WP:POINT long ago. I was one of Elonka's conominators at RFA. Really this has gone too far and it's time to use the tools. Requesting a block on Matt57 by an uninvolved sysop. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A block for what again? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Severe harrassment and disrupting wikipedia to make a point. You are very very close to a block so proceed with caution. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, talking about the Jan Czarnowski article wasnt a disruption as Jehochman pointed out. It was simply another non-notable family spam article. These are all bad faith accusations that Durova and Jehochman are making on me.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been going on for ages now, that's why it's getting serious. Each individual thing that has come to this board in recent months regarding your behaviour could be considered minor, but added up, they ammount to a serious campaign of harrassment that no wikipedian should have to put up with. Please Matt, just drop all this. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am far too jaded by far too may encounters with Matt57 and reading the tone of dialogue with others to even suggest that I could venture an impartial opinion here. I will however express my highly partisan views of Matt57. He is an aggressive and disruptive editor with a focus on middle east and Islamic topics where he demontrates a strong POV and hostility to those who do not share it. Indeed that even seem to extend to resentment of those who suggest compromises or try to mediate disputes in that area. His response to those who disagree with him are various pointY activities designed to harass and disrupt. For example, when he dislike the support rationale of User:A.Z., he opposed all RfA that editor had supported in protest. He uses the potential of opposing people at RfA as a stick with which to beat them [3] and shows a disturbing obsession with those he has had disagreements with. His feud with Elonka is one sided and petty - instead of trusting to the community's ability to impartially solve notability and OR issues with articles she (by her own admission) improperly edited or created a year ago, he decided to make that his personal crusade. He removed sourced material from those articles (refusing to accept the counsel of more experienced editors that inline citation are not required by police) and goaded her on her talkpage on multiple occasions. Despite being asked numerous times to stop by at least 8 separate admins (including those who have been strong opponents of Elonka in the past) he continued and responded by making wild accusations against those who criticised him, rather than heading their concern. His only supporter has been revealed to be a sanction evading sockpuppet. His forum shopping has included a post to the help desk making unfounded challenges to Elonka's editorial technique, and recently an abusrd appeal on Jimbo's talkpage. His conduct is nasty, disruptive and small minded - his obsession with Elonka entirely personal and inappropriate. Matt57's attitude to this project is disruptive and totally at odds with trying to create a collegial and co-operative environment. WjBscribe 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not an uninvolved party here. All the things you said are disputes that all of us have in our history. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I seems clear to me (an uninvolved admin) that Matt is in need a break from Wikipedia (or rather Wikipedia is in need of a break from Matt). I'd say a month or two would be a good start before we went indef. Thoughts? -- John Reaves 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly support 1 month to start with and any future harassment escalating accordingly. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with John... it might be time for a break, be it voluntary or involuntary.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is the alleged 'harrassment'? This is really intimidation of the highest degree. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll repeat it here: Please show me specifically the alleged criminal behavior from me that is being complained about. Whats the evidence? What did I do, other than engage in disputes that all of us do at one point or the other anyway? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At one point or the other, yes, but I think one view might be that you seem to be permanently in a state of dispute in multiple locations. I should also note that I, like you, strongly opposed Elonka's RfA and as far as I can remember have never personally been in a dispute with you (just watched from a distance, mainly during the DavidYork business where you were restoring edits by socks of a banned user). Orderinchaos 16:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The same banned editor who I myself later supported for an indef ban and even marked some of his sock puppets due to his continued swastika trolling etc. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked Matt57 for one month per this discussion. The comments on Jehockman's talk page are clearly a threat and I'm getting tired of all the disruption that seems to be connected to this user. As always, any other admin is welcome to unblock or vary the block to reflect any change to consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this block, as Matt57 is clearly editing in a highly tendentious manner (more so than usual, at any rate). Vassyana has declined the unblock request. A month of peace and quiet beckons, hopefully. Moreschi ^Talk 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's nice to see that the system works. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As an univolved observer, I endorse this action regarding Matt57. I suggest that if it continues after his enforced break, that WP:CSN would be the place for a discussion of future sanctions. --Rocksanddirt 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As another uninvolved (except only for supporting Elonka's RfA) nonadmin observer, I also fully endorse this block. This editor's tendentious stalking, POV pushing and countering demonstrations of his troubling edit patterns with the equivalent of "show me that demonstrations of my troubling edit patterns demonstrate my troublesome editing patterns" is exhausting the patience of many, many good editors, as well as me, and making me lurkingly wonder what on earth he has to do to get blocked (til now). If he entertains the idea of falling back to similar insistence on his own righteousness, I offer him two suggestions: if you genuinely think you are in the right, consider this discussion and block action to be proof you are wrong; on the other hand, if you indeed know better, then please instead get yourself a blog or something—both you and wikipedia will be better off for it.

There has been a lot of heat generated lately by discussion of how impotent wikipedia seems to be in handling editors who game the system. Hopefully this will resort to a little bit of light. I am not usually this adamant about disputes, and indeed have seen worse, but for the sake of defense from future wikigamers, this type of exploitation of process cannot be merely wristslapped. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Tend to endorse. I will go on record saying that I'm not unbiased here — I like Matt, and my interactions with him endeared him to me; he's a dedicated editor with a strong opinion. However, the pattern of behavior which I've seen from him over the past several months has not been productive; dare I say it, even disruptive. "Tendentious" is perhaps the best word. --Haemo 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is a difference though between an editor with a strong opinion and tendentiously trying to pick fights with editors that one has conflicted with. There is nothing wrong with having a strong opinion; but Matt seems to have crossed over into the latter territory, and not just in this specific situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Indeed, this isn't the first time, nor the first time that he has been warned (our last Elonka related discussion and this. Honestly, I'm surprised at how long the community had put up with this disruptive wikistalking - he was supposed to let go of the Elonka articles after the last ANI discussion, and that was kind considering that he'd already been warned for such behavior. We've given him enough chances to change and show more respect, but he just never let go. The Behnam 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Durova Elonka is permitted to flood wikipedia with articles about her family, when that family does not pass the notability threshold. One of these silly articles is the subject of a current AfD which has about a dozen delete votes: [4]. A month block for upholding wikipedia guidelines is another reflection on the current crop of admins. Arrow740 03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm- (1) I think it was Elonka, not Durova you meant to make the accusation against, (2) her edits to those articles were all about a year ago and she accepts that this created WP:COI and WP:AUTO problems and has agreed to no longer edit them (so its really up to everyone except Elonka whether those articles should stay on Wikipedia or not), and (3) surely that discussion (with which Matt57 has not been involved) shows that he can step back and let the community deal with the matter rather than continuing a campaign of harassment against fellow editors? WjBscribe 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If she has recused herself from those articles, then Matt's cleaning-house there is not a campaign of harassment against her. Arrow740 07:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons the community has near-unanimity about this block is that this rather transparently was a campaign of harassment against her. Among other things, Matt repeatedly challenged her to edit those pages and refused to accept her explanation about how once she became aware of WP:COI she stopped editing them. His history didn't show an interest in biography articles generally, just people who were related to her and only after she had tried to find middle ground in a dispute where he had taken a very hard line. Although the community was divided about her bid for administratorship, there's near unanimity for this block and some expressions that it was a long time coming. Durova^Charge! 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are taking the side of the only one of the two of them to actually violate wikipedia guidelines. I am not aware of the context of the "repeated challenges" and I would guess that they were in response to something Elonka said. Arrow740 19:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In good faith, it appears that you're very much unaware of the context. Elonka made some mistakes when she was a new editor. She admits that freely and she came into compliance with site standards by - among other things - ceasing to edit these articles. One of the reasons this long block has near-unanimous support is that Matt's challenges weren't in response to any provocation by Elonka. He simply decided to target her. Durova^Charge! 09:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Fortunately for all concerned, I'm descended from a long line of beer drinking peasants. None of them have Wikipedia articles. ;) Durova^Charge! 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused; can you expand on what you are asking by surely that discussion (with which Matt57 has not been involved) shows that he can step back and let the community deal with the matter rather than continuing a campaign of harassment against fellow editors? Yahel Guhan 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support a long block, based on the LAST time we all went through the 'Matt57 going after Elonka' thing. Wasn't that just a month ago? two months? this sort of thing just goes back to the JzG section above about long term tendentious editing not being stopped due to ridiculous warning:time ratios. Block him long term. Let him find a new hobby or new perspective on things. ThuranX 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Viran and the theory of relativity

Resolved

Viran is insiting on treating Wikipedia like a bulliten board. He has tried multiple times to impose this edit on the article and had it reverted each time. The edit is discussed at Talk:Theory_of_relativity#Explaining_Second_Postulate_of_SR and is universally panned. None the less, in his latest post on that talk page he says that

I want my explainatory post in article.

Viran has been told on his talk page that Wikipedia is not a discussion group, but he refuses to listen.

BTW - He also is taking on the persona of Neo from The Matrix film series. Perhaps it is time to "unplug" Viran from our encyclopedia matrix? Thanks much, --EMS | Talk 15:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the above. He has made it clear that he won't listen to any regular 'peon' users, just someone with authority (maybe an admin -the nonsense is spreading). R. Baley 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User notified about this thread (diff). R. Baley 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note Virian/neo, please do not delete my comment as you did here on this board. R. Baley 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am just explaining second postulate of SR. Vandalism is something which goes against meaning of article, unsourced. I am supporter of second postulate of SR.

These people don't want to improve quality of article. May be these people are anti-Einstein.

Science is not democracy where opinion of majority matters. What matters is reason.

This is neo !!! 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to present an explanatory example, please provide one from a reliable reference. A basic physics textbook should suffice. We are not permitted to insert our own interpretations and explanatory examples. Vassyana 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Viram's post is almost a classic example of a response for a rigidly dogmatic editor. I see this not only from cranks but also from respected professors who in theory should know better. The overall gist of this is "I am right. Please get out of my way and let me do my thing". However, only Viram thinks that he is right, or that his proposed edit would at all improve the article. --EMS | Talk 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Myself as well. I have tried working with him as seen on his talk page. It is not going well :-( Spryde 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fwiw, I filed two requests for admin intervention with template Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first was dismissed as a clear case of wp:bite - which i.m.o. was exactly what he was trying to provoke.

The second was declared "not-another-case" of wp:3rr and was delisted by C.Fred, who probably didn't recognize Ems57fcva's first early warning as such. EMS did indeed not use the formal warning templates, perhaps to avoid biting the newcomer.

DVdm 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Unbelievably, Viran/neo persists (link diff) in making the same edit. R. Baley 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, he just did it three times as shown in the article history and it the face of warnings in the edit summaries. I think that he has stopped for the day due to WP:3RR. IMO, he his just going to continue to push on us like this until an admin ahows that we are serious by blocking him. --EMS | Talk 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

and again. . .with a request, I might add. R. Baley 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 31 hours for edit warring. I don't care whether or not he violated the 3rr. Friday (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See everyone here again in 31 then? ('100 names', "Blocking is trivial" "Don't talk. Go ahead.Do it.") R. Baley 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He will be back - with a vengeance. DVdm 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you will be right. At least we have tried to show him how to do it. Spryde 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You made a truly remarkable effort. I lift my hat to you. DVdm 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After consulting with Friday, I have indefinitely blocked the account. His only edits have been useless and/or disruptive, and his threat to futher disrupt the project by means of sockpuppets means that he doesn't care about improving the project. -- Merope 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for this. We most likely will be battling the sockpuppets next, but that is always a losing battle for the sock-puppeteer. --EMS | Talk 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say how unnerving it was when he stopped communicating with me in favor of quoting the Matrix? It was pretty freaking unnerving. --Masamage ♫ 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Merope's indef block. Forget about his insistence on his, er, idiosyncratic explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity, or throwing the word "vandalism" about: this user has been reverting to his own version of the article for two days straight. Should have been blocked for 3RR alone. -- llywrch 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd as it may seem for me to say this, but I think that Viram was treated properly under WP:3RR. He stopped on 9/23 just after he had been officially warned, amd so could not be disciplined then. Only after his 4th revert on 9/25 was there just cause to block him, and at that point his whole "account" became due. The price he "paid" is of course the indefinite han.

This is an editor which was obviously going to be trouble as soon as he/she came to Wikipedia. A look at their initial edits shows that they came here almost looking for trouble. While I do understand WP:BITE and agree the newcomers should be given some slack, I am not at all sure that a newcomer who starts out biting us should really be covered by WP:BITE. The sooner we establish ourselves with a rouge editor, the better IMO. --EMS | Talk 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Some people strangely enough have not dealt with Wikipedia before. It took me a year to get a handle on this place before contributing regularly. I tried to deal with this particular user but he was determined it seems. If I had to do it all over again, I would. Spryde 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a difference between a new user who means well but just plain does not know what they are doing and someone who comes here with a very definite and disruptive agenda. The former can be dealt with and will quickly find their niche (not that it may not take them some time to get used to Wikpedia). The later just gets more and more frustrated (and frustating for the other editors) as their agenda keeps getting derailed. Viran was very much of the later ilk.

OTOH, even with my concern, my use of this page has worked very well (and even better than I expected). If I can keep reporting new and disruptive editors here and have constructive action taken promptly then I will be happy. Even if I need to wait a week or two before doing a report (so that the distruptive pattern can be fully established), this resource can still make being in Wikipedia less stressful. Indeed, just knowing that I can eventually come here in case of trouble will make dealing with future Virans less strssful. --EMS | Talk 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blog reviews in Film Noir

I found over 70 links to a blog, http://noiroftheweek.blogspot.com in various film noir articles. The vast majority were added by Steve Eifert and a couple of IPs that only added these links. I removed them all as spam. Now, RedSpruce has decided to readd them all after calling me a dick repeatedly [5] [6]. I have explained that blogs aren't reliable sources and they fail WP:EL. RedSpruce found a couple of the entries that were ostensibly penned by valid authors. The problem is, those entries are taken from published materials and added to the blog with no assertion of permission to do so...and while I explained this to RedSource, he doesn't seem to care. The other entries are all simply reviews from people on the blog owner's message board. Nothing of note. IN the course of his blind reverts, he is adding in other spam that was removed. IrishGuy ^talk 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After posting this...he decided to reiterate that I am a relentless dick. IrishGuy ^talk 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, maybe I'm just on a blocking roll, but I'm inclined to block for incivility and edit warring. The links clearly don't fall under WP:EL; it's a blog that violates copyright. Removing them was the correct decision; restoring them and calling you a dick isn't. I'll issue a final warning. -- Merope 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning posted and will monitor. *sigh* -- Merope 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't like your warning [7] :) Thanks for talking to him, though. IrishGuy ^talk 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that I was uncivil to IrishGuy. However, his actions with regard to these links he removed were unjustified and in my view incorrect. The links may have been added in a "spam like" manner by someone hoping to increase traffic to his web site, but if there's a policy for removing links because of an editor's motivation in adding them, I'm not aware of any such policy, nor has IrishGuy cited one. Instead he cited WP:RS which doesn't apply because these were external links, not sources used for attribution, and WP:EL. WP:EL discourages, but does not prohibit, links to blogs "except those written by a recognized authority." I pointed out to IrishGuy that many of the articles whose links he deleted were in fact written by published authors and recognized authorities. He then raised the issue that these links might be copyright violations.

In fact, until IrishGuy mentioned it, the issue of copyright violation hadn't occurred to me. I guess I was distracted by IrishGuy's arrogant attitude and his obvious ignorance of the WP policies that he repeatedly recommended that I read up on. However, IrishGuy has no evidence that any of the linked articles are copyright violations. In one case, the editor of the website speaks of interviewing the author of the book being excerpted ("I asked Dr. Mayer to tell us a little about the book...) [8] -- that certainly implies the original author's involvement in the website article. In another, the article is said to come from a yet-to-be-published book [9]. That too strongly suggests the original author's involvement. If there is a WP policy against linking to articles that might contain copyright violations, I'm not aware of it.

I apologize to the WP community for my insulting language. I believe IrishGuy owes the community an apology for his unjustified wholesale deletions of valid content. RedSpruce 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No policy against spamming? How about WP:SPAM. Again, I don't have to prove that they are copyright violations...the blog itself doesn't give any reason to believe otherwise. What you quote could be a simply cut and paste from another source. Even if it isn't, interviewing soemone doesn't give you the right to copy a book to a blog. Even within your answer you are incivil. Once again, please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

IrishGuy, your endless and inappropriate repetitions of "please read..." are insulting and a form of personal attack. Please desist or I will be forced to post a warning on your Talk page. Thanks. RedSpruce 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you clearly do need to read the civility guidelines...as well as WP:SPAM, WP:EL, etc. Two other editors have agreed and warned you. IrishGuy ^talk 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The debate on the validity of the "Film Noir of the Week" page as an external link has been continued here: User talk:RedSpruce#Film Noir of the Week page. I am actively soliciting input from anyone who can offer any rational argument that addresses the points I've raised here and on my Talk page. (Hints: Saying "you're wrong because X number of people have said you're wrong" is not a rational argument. Saying "all of your arguments have been addressed, you just aren't listening" is not a rational argument when it's not true.) RedSpruce 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren blocked

Digwuren continues to edit war despite several blocks in the past. He has recently been edit warring at Denial of Soviet occupation. Therefore, I've blocked for two weeks (his most recent block was for one). As Digwuren is involved in a current Arbcom case, there may need to be arrangements to unblock him for this reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you chose to block only him and not also Anonimu (talk · contribs) with 4 reverts in 24h ([10], [11], [12], [13]) and a far longer block log? -- Sander Säde 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1.The first diff is my first edit on the page and my {{or}} was brand new (no rv) 2. The second is a rv indeed. 3. Since H2O said in his summary that "No, a referenced article that has every right to be kept", i decided to drop the OR and ask for a reference that, judging by H2O's tone, wasn't hard to get. Not a revert, in my opinion. The two tags have different meanings. (no rv) 4.The fourth can be considered a partial revert. Thus I have one revert and a half, plus some suggestion of compromise.Anonimu 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. Digwuren was unblocked for no apparent reason within five hours after the block, arranged the promotion of a recently deleted POV fork to GA, and created a bunch of inflammatory templates (speedied by now). --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The conflict between you and Diwurgen has an ArbCom case. Please try to avoid posting inflammatory accusations of one another on this forum for the duration of this case, we have had enough of those in the past.

With regards to the article in question, protection (due to warring by several editors) is much better than singling one of them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of Profg

Profg was recently blocked by William Connolley [14]. I declined the unblock, but the user claims that I am too involved to make the unblock call. I'm therefore bringing the matter up here for other admins to review. JoshuaZ 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see how your editorial views would have tainted your ability to tell whether or not something was harassment. Tend to endorse. --Haemo 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Good call. He seems bent on earning an indef block; while it would save a lot of agony to cut out the middle steps between now and that eventual outcome, others would likely object. Raymond Arritt 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• I pulled out a Clueyville Slugger; hopefully he gets thie hint from me and stops throwing around the accusations he has been. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• I left what I hoped would be a helpful little note, explaining why he was seeing the same editors on the same family of articles, and asking him if he understood our policies on civility and harassment. He responded with yet more nastiness, hostility, and accusations of a "clique" of editors who reverted his edits. I thought about trying to explain WP:CON to him, but it really looks like he's not interested in learning anything. He made specific accusations against me and blanket accusations against everyone on Wikipedia. I'm inclined at this point to agree with Arritt and say he clearly is trolling for an indef, and I for one suggest we accommodate him. He isn't here to improve the encyclopedia, but to wage some kind of war of insults and disrupt. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• I see someone who not only doesn't understand what Wikipedia is about (which is fine - it's not exactly intuitive), but has absolutely no interest in learning. So far his impact has been uniformly negative and disruptive, he's consumed a lot of volunteer time, and he's not interested in acknowledging there's a problem with his behavior or amending it in any way. This is exactly the kind of editor to whom too much patience is shown. If there's no improvement when this block expires, then I think indefinite would be appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My thinking exactly, Mastcell. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.60.63.183

I have "BOLDly" (recklessly, illicitly?) semi-protected this page. My comments on it explain. Somebody else may wish either to confirm or to undo my good (or not) work. -- Hoary 00:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. —Crazytales talk/desk 00:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong on #2 - no impersonation. However, I say, let him rot. Static IP been vandalizing for ages. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems perfectly fine to me. Sometimes showing people the door doesn't work, and it's time to drunk-toss. Natalie 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The only potential problems I saw were that:

1. While anal homosex seems to be his greatest obsession, I seem to be his second or third greatest; preventative action might look like punitive action, and punitive action might look personal.
2. Semi-protecting an IP's talk page is a bad idea; it prevents innocent, unrelated would-be users from speaking up.
3. I had a feeling that all this was explained on some howto page somewhere, but I was connected expensively and slowly via modem and was in a rush to get out of the house.

-- Hoary 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If the user is abusing the unblock template, or vandalizing his own talk page while he is blocked, a semiprotection may be a good idea for a short while, IMO. Good call! -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

JJJ999

JJJ999 (talk · contribs)

This user has... interesting views as to notability. For instance:

Look, I'm fucked if I understand any of the science, but a room mate of mine had some he gto from Russia, was awesome shit. I could have the name wrong, but after googling all day this link I found appears to justify me belief it is correct.

-JJJ999 on why he made a rambling article about a homeopathic remedy that combined information for two different remedies with his own special rambling.

I think he might need a little watching. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, [15] Pete.Hurd 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• How many Ghits did those two things produce? Hardly inarguable either way...JJJ999 05:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I look through the list of this user's "contributions", a single word keeps coming to mind. It's "troll". -- Hoary 06:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeh, the creation of the ACTDU page... very troll worthy, or adding footnotes needed for ANUSA, or calling for the retention of Muten Roshi and Bulma's page. Nice one thoughJJJ999 06:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• rhymes with "knoll". Maybe worth a RFCU to see if he's related to another troll with predilection to Australian and Chemistry topics. Pete.Hurd 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Was discussed here a few days ago; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive300#User:JJJ999. There is some timing in the contribution logs to support the idea of a RFCU, but nothing I see dispositive. Based on where I've noticed JJJ999, I'd say there is an interest in and bias toward atheism. I don't see that topical interest in the contribs of any of the suspected puppets. So I'm unwilling to conclude puppetry in the absence of a RFCU. I do think there is a need to learn civility norms and adhere to them. If the user intends to continue participaring in deletion discussions, learning notability norms would be wise also. GRBerry 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User Bamadude

• Bamadude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This relatively new editor got into a dispute with Croctotheface and me over Taxi (TV series). Now, he seems to be following me around reverting my edits out of spite (the last one on Taxi and one on My Fair Lady (film)). (He was also kind enough to warn me about the 3RR rule, though apparently 8 were okay for him.) Seems to have been an isolated incident, so let it slide. Clarityfiend 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This complaint was actually about 3 different users (assuming these accounts aren't sockpuppets as they usually don't edit at the same time) who harassed me because they didn't like my edits, and used the "letter of the law" (so to speak) to revert my edits by arguing over WP:MOS. I agree that I unknowingly made at least one edit that went against the manual of style and I relented after my research, but that's not the real issue here - it's just a smokescreen by those users to win at least a little ground in an edit war, a "tweak of my nose" if you will. Apparently the edit war has been settled as I relented since the content is essentially 99% my edits anyway.--Bamadude 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war in article Loyola Law School

EditorEsquire repeatedly prevents us from adding information from a Wall Street Journal cover story. The edit he keeps removing is here. [16] --Thirdoffer23 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO he's right to keep removing the edit. An anonymous blogger's unsubstantiated claims do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Extant comparative statistics are already in the article. Blogs are generally not reliable sources except for blogs which are either associated with reputable publishing organizations or are authored by known authorities or experts. Loyola2L does not appear to meet either of those standards. FCYTravis 05:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So a blogger, who made the cover of the Wall Street Journal, for a matter related to Loyola Law School, doesn't require a mention in the Loyola Law School wikipedia? If you look, you'll see the Loyola article literally has no critical comments, unlike every other Wikipedia article. What happened to balance? Also, since when do we need to independently substantiate something reported in the mainstream media? --Thirdoffer23 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing which has been reported in the mainstream media is a one-line mention of the existence of an anonymous blog whose writers apparently have grievances with Loyola Law School. There is no journalistic investigation into the substance of the complaints or any critical analysis of whether the grievances are justified or not. The article even points out that there is no confirmation that the blog is even written by students, because it is entirely anonymous. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are not obligated to reprint everything which has ever been written in a newspaper. We have higher standards for sourcing and inclusion of information. I make no judgment on the truth of the allegations, but Wikipedia does not republish anonymous blog criticisms of persons or organizations. FCYTravis 05:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with FCYTravis on this. WP:VERIFY is a core policy, and this "source" is not up to snuff. -- Satori Son 05:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright whatever, I don't have time to argue with two nerds on a powertrip. Get a life. --Thirdoffer23 05:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an unacceptable response and I've warned Thirdoffer23 on his or her Talk page. --ElKevbo 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:IAF

I have indefinitely blocked IAF (talk · contribs) (aka "Indian Air Force"). He was blocked for one week. He has since edited as an IP user to continue his campaigning and disruption, including curiously accusing me of being a Jain involved in some conspiracy.[17][18][19][20] He has shown an intention to continue disrupting the wiki, so based on advice I received when I put the one week block up for review, I instituted a block with an indefinite duration. I have blocked the three IP addresses he has used with an anon block, including preventing account creation, for one month. I tagged all three IP talk pages with {{anonblock}}.[21][22][23] I have also semi-protected Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week to help prevent any further disruption.[24] I have avoided semi-protecting the talk page, as it is generally frowned upon, but may do so if he continues to use multiple IP addresses to disrupt discussion there. Feedback, comments and suggestions are quite welcome. Vassyana 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

While I believe it normally inappropriate to use admin tools when engaged in a content dispute (no matter how marginal the content may be) I note that IAF has never attempted to disguise that he continued to edit as an ip to evade their block, nor have they attempted to request unblock. In this instance I believe the actions were appropriate, but I think a better course would have been bring this matter to this board before taking action yourself (especially as the user was still under a one week block). Of course, this will not stop the user from editing via ip - and I strongly suggest you get an uninvolved admin to deal with any future edits. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who implemented the one week block. I asked for a review of the block, because I was reminded after the fact that I had engaged with the user on a similar issue about six months ago, by reading his talk page. I did not want to engage in an inappropriate action by community standards, so I made sure to solicit input. In the most recent action, I acted in harmony with the advice of the only editor to respond, who suggested an indefinite block if there were any further issues. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104#Block review (possible_conflict). I hope that helps clarify the situation. Vassyana 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing COI tags

Fredsmith2 (talk · contribs) doesn't like COI tags.[25][26] That's fine, but he's started removing tags willy nilly without always fixing the underlying problems. This is potentially disruptive. I left him a stern warning, but he hasn't given me much respect (maybe because I'm just a puny editor). If not for the snarky comment he made at the template talk page, I'd chalk this up to lack of experience, but my feeling is that I need backup. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I added my two cents. Hopefully he gets a better grasp of what he is asking before pushing any further. Spryde 11:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if what he's doing is that out of order. He could be a little nicer about it, but describing the practice of tagging rather than fixing a problem as "lazy" is entirely appropriate. Neil ム 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Neil, I wish you'd go over to WP:COIN and fix some of those problems yourself. I haven't seen you over there lately. This is a volunteer project, so it's rude to call other people lazy. Sometimes an article needs to be completely rewritten because it's riddled with peacock terms, and lacks sourcing. That can take a lot of time. My complaint isn't with the user's opinion, it's with his actions which are an end run around consensus policy. Stripping tags because you don't like them is very disruptive. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any activity since this report was made. Maybe he'll get the message. Follow up if the problem continues. Durova^Charge! 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On "tagging but not fixing", sometimes in my RCP I spot an article that clearly needs some kind of clean up, but I'm working on fighting vandalism at the time. Surely it's better to let people know that it needs some clean up, rather than let it sit in a poor state? The other reason someone may tag an article but not work on it is that they know enough to know it needs work, but not feel confident enough (or in fact know they don't have the appropriate skills) to perform the cleanup themselves. Again, I think tagging articles is appropriate, in order to let someone who does have the time, energy, knowledge, and skill to do the work. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On each of my three edits on articles with COI tags, I contributed to the pages by a combination of two or more of the following: 1) putting more appropriate tags, 2) adding comments to the talk pages, 3) by expanding the article, 4) adding references, 5) cleaning up the article. I think that the claim of my edits being willy nilly is unfounded. If you have a better discusson than calling my edits willy nilly, I would love any constructive feedback. None of the three pages that I removed the COI tags from had proof they actually were COI, or comments in the talk page by the person who had tagged them originally, about them being COI. Most were just poorly written. Fredsmith2 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you visit the pages in question and check the edit history, you will see multiple edits on each by a userid that suggests a close relationship to the subject. Additionally, the articles had a promotional tone. Do you understand the nature of my concerns in light of your comments at Template talk:COI2? To be clear, I am not stressed, but just want you to see that there is a consensus to keep these tags, and that there are sometimes good reasons to use them. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Better to tag it an an advertisement, in my opinion, than a COI. You have very clear evidence of advertisement, but unclear evidence of COI. But that's really more for the discussion page.

So, I'm feeling kind of picked on here. All I did was try to fix up three articles that had the COI tag, and express my opinion about the COI tag on the template talk page at the same time. I don't really feel "That's fine, but he's started removing tags willy nilly without always fixing the underlying problems." accurately describes my sincere effort to try to improve those three articles. I'm always try to contribute content to wikipedia, and I feel like I'm being labeled as someone that's removing good content from wikipedia. What's the term for those folks, by the way? Fredsmith2 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely not being labeled as something bad. You're a good editor. Please don't feel insulted. Let's take this discussion back to the talk page where it started. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Proabivouac

This might not make sense unless you're familiar with the history of Proabivouac.

Proabivouac has taken to editing policy pages disruptively, see this. He also said I threatened him because I reverted his edits telling him "don't push it". He also edited Wikipedia:Attack sites claiming that "By these criteria, Wikipedia is currently itself an attack site". In the past day or so, all he has done is edit policy pages disruptively, and appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Opinions? --Deskana (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Proabivouac is obviously trying to make a point, only editing for effect. The edit on attack sites alone is proof enough. Jmlk17 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Under Proabivouac's probation, "He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior." Thatcher131 10:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs are disturbing to me. He does indeed seem to be being, in one word, disruptive; this diff is probably the most disruptive. Have you made any attempt to have a polite discussion with him Deskana? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident, this may sound to you a little circular, but if this language had been there to begin with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I aim to prevent another situation like mine.Proabivouac 11:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've not "edit[ed] for effect," but to honestly apprise potential contributors of what they are likely to encounter here, and spare them from damage which can result from ill-informed decisions. As I don't edit war, I've been reverted, the end: I've taken it to talk.Proabivouac 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

is there a link to the Arbitration probation ruling? Neil ム 11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not one that won't send Proabivuoac into another conniption fit. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests and search for his name. Thatcher131 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, he's been blocked by User:FT2 for a week. I was just going to ban him from editing policy pages for a couple of weeks on pain of a block (per the wording of the ruling), but I guess a block is understandable. Neil ム 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Probivouac was unblocked within half an hour, and I actually welcome this decision, provided that he takes his grievances to talk pages (as he promised to do). --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He's on probation for a reason and all he's done for the past few weeks is disprupt. Bad unblock in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not meant to be punitive. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't punitive given the crap that Proabivouac has caused over the past few weeks, I very much doubt it will stop now and this block was a way of stopping that disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are really exaggerating spurious reports of disruption. Probaviouac uses the talk page quite frequently to voice his statements, and I dont see the need to apply punitive, capricious, measures to a user in good standing like him.Bakaman 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This certainly seems like a textbook example of WP:POINT. Under the terms of his probation, any single administrator may ban him from any page that he edits disruptively. Is there any objection to banning him from Wikipedia:Username policy and Wikipedia:Attack sites? I don't propose banning him from the talk pages of those policies (for now); if he'd like to make any constructive suggestions there he's welcome to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Talk pages would be fine. Neil ム 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is room for legitimate disagreement with some aspects of how Probivouac's situation was handled a few weeks ago, but edits such as the ones he has made this week to policy pages are not helpful (and editing the page for an already-rejected policy seems particularly unnecessary). Probivouac should be aware by now that the issue he flagged has been noted by arbitrators and other administrators. On the other hand, it is difficult to see what can be effectively changed at this point. He is welcome to continue the discussion on the arbitration talk page if he believes it would be helpful but otherwise I would prefer to see himn and it might be best for him if he would, direct his efforts to other matters. Newyorkbrad 12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to essentially say the same thing that Newyorkbrad did. I see little compelling reason for anyone to be making the type of edit Pro did to what is a dead proposal; it's just completely unnecessary.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivuoac is rapidly wearing out his welcome as far as policy pages are concerned. All he has done in the last couple of weeks is push the same barrow on as many different pages as he can think of. However, the correct application of the probation would seem to be a ban from editing policy pages, not a complete block. (To be enforced by blocking, if necessary, and it could be escalated to include the talk pages if he edits disruptively there as well.) If he voluntarily respects this, there is no need to formalize it for the time being. Thatcher131 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to this

I am concerned how Slrubenstein thought it was okay to ignore an Arbcom ruling, and unblock Proabivouac on an incredibly specious reason ("it's not disruptive if it didn't break 3RR"), particularly as Proabivouac was not blocked for breaking 3RR, and no effort made to discuss it with the blocking administrator (FT2) was made. Neil ム 13:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, 3RR is not the be all and end all of disruption. Viridae^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this unblock for the same reasons as Viridae and Neil. --Deskana (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The stated reason is somewhat specious. However, under the terms of the probation it would have been more appropriate to ban him from editing policy pages, and only enforce with a block if he continued to edit them. Certainly admins have the discretion to ban users in excess of any prior rulings if the situation warrants it, but since Proabivuoac's disruptive edits are confined to a relatively narrow set of policy pages, I think a topic ban would have been a more appropriate first step. The goal here is not to drive the user away, after all. Thatcher131 13:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So are we saying "Due to an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing, Proabivouac is banned from editing policy (guideline, essay) pages. Editing of such pages will result in a block."? Do we need to formalise this somehow? Neil ム 14:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea, and I'm sure that everyone agree's that this is needed. It's sad, but I believe that we should also attempt to nip this in the bud, with a strong warning to Proabivouac that future disruptive behaviour, however minor, will not be tolerated. Basically, he needs to drop this now. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the probation it should be logged on the Arbitration case page, as well as noticed to his talk page, of course. Thatcher131 14:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, there is no reason to WP:WHEEL over the block, but a policy mainpage topic ban would probably suffice (excluding talkpages).--Isotope23 ^talk 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think the unblock was unwise. Disruption does not just mean 3RR. I am often astounded by how quickly admins are willing to substitute their judgment for anothers even when the block has been strongly endorsed by third parties. Objections to blocks should be raised on this board and unblocks should happen where there is a consensus that the block was inappropriate, not just where there is one admin that disagrees with it. WjBscribe 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Policy page ban implemented ([27], [28]). Neil ム 09:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  I welcome the decision to implement the policy page ban. A 1-week block from all pages (including talk pages) was hardly warranted, but Proabivoauc's solicitation of an unblock via private channels was even less appropriate. Hopefully we may archive the discussion at this point. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:202.86.166.79

This user seems to be dedicated to inserting a tag with the Greek flag into various articles on places in Turkey. I've reversed their edit to Troy as that's the page I watch. Is there a bot capable of reversing the rest? See[[29]] for the full list of activities.--Peter cohen 11:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 11:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see they've now done Insect too. So I've issued a vandal warning 3.--Peter cohen 11:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

122.2.151.103 - This IP address keeps on editing our La Salle CSB page putting names thatis not connected with our school. I think they are insulting some one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.168.128 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "keeps on", you mean "twice", right? Ordinary vandalism, probably just wants to see his name in Wikipedia. Should it escalate,after say a final warning, go here. I've warned the user.--Sethacus 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

216, this is September. Vandalism always tends to spike at the start of the school year as students who don't have internet connections at home all gain access through their school networks. This is not a new phenomenon. Slambo (Speak) 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User GATA4001 for violating en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TE

The evidence is located in the Talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HD_Radio#Banning_Gata4001 - We editors of this page have tried & tried & tried to get him to stop. We talked to him, we asked him politely, we gave him links to help him understand the purpose of Wikipedia, but he refuses to listen to any of us. Every day, there GATA4001 is, making another destructive edit of the HD Radio article. Frankly we're tired of undoing his damage.

Please block him from any further editing. Thank you. - Theaveng 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(Non-admin) I note that there are several NPOV violations by this user, but am unsure if blocking is quite in order. Perhaps a final {{uw-npov4}} warning might suffice. [30], [31] and several other diffs are of note - the user seems to be complaining about sources while introducing original research himself/herself. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the user is making POV edits and talk page style edits, all to the same article, mind you, at times using improper edit summaries ("grammer"). I think someone should give them a "clue", like the one mentioned in the comment above.--Sethacus 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He just did it again. Even though we specifically told him, "Do not include opinions without citations" he ignored us and reinserted the exact same anti-HD Radio comments/opinions/unsubstantiated claims that we have deleted over-and-over-and-over. I've had enough. - Theaveng 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's things like this, not just GATA4001 but other disruptive persons that I've seen ruin various articles, why I think wikipedia should end its "anyone can edit" policy. There ought to be a restriction that (1) only people who are registered can edit and (2) until that person reaches, say 100 edits, his changes must be approved by an experienced user.

That would help eliminate the schoolkids in study hall just randomly vandalizing articles for fun. And it would help stop inexperienced users (like GATA4001) from making foolish changes, until they become familiar with how wiki works. Just my humble opinion. Most importantly it would help keep my blood pressure down, because I wouldn't have to worry about these jokers destroying several YEARS worth of work in just 30 minutes time. Just my humble opinion. - Theaveng 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that User:Gata4001 has not edited the article since the final warning, so I feel unable to issue a block. A couple of questions, one serious and one not so; firstly, have you tried adding Gata4001's critical edits 'as well as the consensus ones? I haven't checked, but Gata4001 believes they have cites for their edits. If so, there is nothing to stop both/all viewpoints being represented. The serious question is; should you be editing Wikipedia if you suffer from high blood pressure - really, no piece of cyberspace is worth your health! If it was just a figure of speech, well.... Anyhows, if Gata4001 continues to act against the consensus then report it to WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of GATA's edits, such as the paragraph about the new NDS "pay to hear" licensing with HD Radio, but where Gata worded it "this sucks and will lead to no more free radio", I worded it using a non-judgmental/neutral viewpoint. ----- Unfortunately the amount of trash GATA adds outweighs about 10-to-1 anything useful. He keeps adding comments like "HD Radio will be dead by 2009" which is not in any way helpful. ----- Worse, he deletes things like 30 links to external citations (why? who knows?), and I'm concerned we'll end up "losing" something because of one of his careless deletions.

As for wikipedia's policy of allowing anonymous and/or newbies to trash articles, it seems rather silly to me. Like deciding to eliminate border guards along the Canada line. Yeah sure, MOST canadians are decent people, but there are also those whackjobs who ought to be kept out until they've been properly "naturalized" to comply with the new U.S. rules (i.e. Registered). Wikipedia ought to have some kind of barrier to keep out the riff-raff, until they've proven themselves to be decent editors with, say, 100 established user-approved edits. (I guess what I'm trying to say, is that ALL articles ought to have semi-protection, by default.)- Theaveng 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That kind of stuff is brought up almost monthly, and that would be tantamount to (a) falsehood in advertising ("Anyone can edit _{provided you're registered}!") and (b) biting newcomers. Vandals are easily dealt with; it's POV-pushers that need to be kept an eye on and reported to the proper authorities. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

TOR point violations

There's at least one editor currently going around abusing the unblock template on talk pages for TOR proxies. An example is User talk:69.57.148.76. I have issued warnings and will now simply be reverting these WP:POINT violations and temporarily semiprotecting the talk pages if this continues. --Yamla 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that your behaviour is very bad, Yamla. Not only this particular case, but your activity as an admin on WP as a whole. Anyway, thanks for protecting talk pages only for 24h, I will come back tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.156.172 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:POINT violations continue. Now, the user is linking to an off-Wikipedia attack site. Anonymous user, if you have a point to raise, please do so. Your WP:POINT violations are inappropriate. --Yamla 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious WP:POINT. This user is having no trouble editing (as evidenced by the IP used above), and is familiar enough with policy to be a regular contributor. If you want to propose a change, please do so at the proper policy page. The Evil Spartan 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rollback page moves?

Resolved

 – taken care of by TomTheHand Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin rollback a couple of dozen page moves that were performed by a BOLD! but ultimately misguided new editor? Pogo935 (talk · contribs) moved over twenty articles on Japanese aircraft carriers from Japanese aircraft carrier {name} to {name} (aircraft carrier) apparently out of ignorance of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They're baaackk....

As previously reported, the Internet Coffee Phone people are back. I just killed the term in Macintosh and Nespresso which were added in the last few minutes. A quick search shows nothing else but I thought I would make others aware. Spryde 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few more that are popping up in Recent Changes. They all seem to be from different anon IPs — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some searches to help...

• [32]
• [33]
• [34] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Internet_Coffee_Phone is also a good one for spotting them - just caught 3 in the last 5 minutes — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Zer0faults editing, not blocked, plz handle

Resolved

 – Account blocked indefinitely.

Special:Contributions/Zer0faults --Milto LOL pia 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• In light of this[35] we may have to reconsider the latest suspicions regarding sockpuppetry[36][37] which people feel are unfounded. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I guess this settles the question of whether SixOfDiamonds was a sock or not. Worst part is that I had some considerable interaction with Six, and while he was a pain in the butt, he was mostly able to contribute well. But he just couldn't stay away from MONGO (and vice versa) or avoid edit warring. Shame. The Evil Spartan 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• As a recent RFCU[38] could not substantiate the suspicions of sockpuppetry would this warrant a recheck (new RFCU) as we now have a "fresh" IP to compare with? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

except that if you look at the recent contributions they are all from sept of 2006 not 7, so to old. and doesn't change the arb situation any, even for those who would like it to. --Rocksanddirt 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The diff has been deleted, due to harassment against User:DHeyward. Admins can see that Zer0faults left the message on MONGO's talk page. --Aude (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Maybe this can finally be resolved then, in a way that will stick. --Rocksanddirt 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see how that diff settles the question of whether or not SevenofDiamonds is a sock of Zer0faults. I see nothing in the message that casts any suspicion on SOD, nor anything that would seem to exonerate him. Natalie 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing suspicious? SOD declares he's leaving Wikipedia forever (with a rant directed at MONGO) and a few hours later Zerofaults makes his first edit in over a year by (insults directed at MONGO). I'm not sure what could possibly be more suspicious. Chaz ^Beckett 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To modify a quote by Jeff Greenfield,

“ More things in Wikipedia happen by accident or exhaustion than happen by conspiracy." ”

Found here Spryde 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Occam's Razor is more appropriate for this situation. What's the simplest explanation here?

A. A user totally unrelated to SOD, who hasn't edited in over a year, just happens to show up to make one edit insulting MONGO, mere hours after SOD says he's leaving.

OR

B. SOD edits under his old Zer0faults account in an attempt to stir up some trouble.

No conspiracy here, just a run-of-the-mill sock. Chaz ^Beckett 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the razor. I ressurect what is suppose to be my super secret sock to vindicate me ... when it would only implicate me. I was editing at the time zer0 posted apparently. Or, zer0 was following the case and people told him just above where you posted, that he wasn't actually blocked. What is the simplest answer here? --SevenOfDiamonds 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone with Checkuser can reveal the punch line since they know where I work. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One simple explantion would be that you had someone else make the edit using Zero's account. Or you made the edit yourself from a location you usually don't edit from. Seriously, you've had your sockpuppet fun, give it up now. Chaz ^Beckett 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Another simple explanation would be that he thinks that he was just driven away for being against MONGO, and is annoyed that someone else had the same thing happen to them. Stop pretending that there's only one explanation please. -Amarkov moo! 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, there's only one explanation that makes an ounce of sense. The number of "coincidences" here is beyond astronomical. Just call a spade a spade and call SOD a sockpuppet. Everyone's time is being wasted at this point and SOD/Nuclear/Zero is having a nice laugh. Chaz ^Beckett 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes the razor says its more likely I have hired ppl to make posts on Wikipedia on my past sock account from alternate locations to hide my identity, thats some razor. An arbcom member can see, where I work, is no where near the IP presented. --SevenOfDiamonds 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I hate vandals and abusive socks, I have spent the time between my last edit and this edit looking at the evidence presented by all sides. Taking a look at it without any bias, I see a set of coincidences that were rather tame that eventually escalated into a full blown ArbCom and one of the most uncivil discussions I have seen since joining in 2006. This whole affair is now threatening to ban a productive user. Nothing presented so far is conclusive or even damning. Take a step back. Clear your mind. Read it without any prejudices. There are a lot of eyes on this whole affair from so called "badsites" to blogs to casual observers (like me) who just want to make the project better. I hate to say this but even making these statements above may cause people to suspect ME as being a sock of someone. This whole thing smacks of a witch hunt. Those who clearly have shown nothing but contempt and disruption of the project should be banned. Those that have disputes that do not escalate on occasion should be admonished but move on. Quite a few people involved in that ArbCom has done something against the spirit of the project during that process and anything done as the result of it will stain the project unless a smoking gun is produced now in the 11th hour of the case. Someone fired a gun today. See if it leads where you think it does. Spryde 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That really doesn't seem like a slam dunk to me, although I do not follow SevenOfDiamonds edits and thus didn't know he had declared himself leaving. The speculation about SevenOfDiamonds identity was also followed at WikipediaReview, so it's not like there's no way this person isn't following this. I've gotten emails from a banned user after mentioning them on ANI; should I then conclude that someone I'm addressing is actually this banned user? I also note that the last checkuser did not come back inconclusive or stale, but pretty affirmatively unrelated. Natalie 01:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone produced an IP that belonged to zer0 apparently, this was ignored. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ZZZZZZZZZZ--MONGO 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And the second (third?) checkuser has come back as unrelated. I would suggest that everyone who has spent the better part of their time attempting to make something, anything, stick against SevenOfDiamonds step back and try doing something else with their time. Natalie 12:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Banning of Skatewalk (user)

• Could this incident get a second look by some unbiased admins? The basis of the ban is ridiculous. Link: [39]

Funkynusayri 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• A "strong suggestion" from a checkuser that the two users of the same is good enough for me, when you couple it with the user's protests that his IP is and was his, and his alone. --Haemo 21:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bots not picking up unlicensed images

I notice that at the moment, User:OrphanBot has stopped doing anything since last night. I think it might have been giving its work User:STBotI. However, 90% of the new images being uploaded that aren't tagged aren't being hit by StlBot: e.g.: [40]. This is a very big problem, as a glutton of unlicensed images are being missed. The Evil Spartan 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you'd notified me directly. I wasn't aware that OrphanBot had stopped running. The bot's working again, and it should have the backlog cleared in the next few hours. --Carnildo 23:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User 205.221.155.74

The user with the IP Address 205.221.155.74 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.221.155.74) is now on his/her sixth consecutive vandalism today. Every one of the user's edits are vandalisms and he or she has already received one warning. It's not my position of warn or block the IP, but I think someone should take a look at it. Tserton 20:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to report this, but briefly; if they've not received a final warning, it's inappropriate to block. If you feel they warrant a warning, add the appropriate template to their talk page. If they vandalise after a fourth (final) warning, submit a report to WP:AIV. In this case, I've issued a level 2 warning - I don't see anything (yet) to warrant a block. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, anyone can warn another editor, as long as there is justification. Also, I've tagged this IP as belonging to a K12.--Sethacus 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF is a K12? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends... It's either a very tall mountain, an NIH career-development grant, or in this case, I believe, an educational institution comprising kindergarten through 12th grade. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you learn something every day. That would be what used to be called "a school", then? — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A side note: Iridescent, please read the archived section on JzG's leaving. It talks about formalism and warnings for nothing but the sake of formalism. ThuranX 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I watched the conversation unfold - but I don't really agree that "warning for the sake of warning" is a bad thing. Plenty of people do stop vandalising after a couple of warnings and go on to provide valid content, who if we blocked right away would leave altogether. Particularly at this time of year when a lot of anon IP edits are from schools, working through the 1-2-3-4 scale can draw the teacher's attention to a problem, get the disruptive kids off the terminal and save the kids who have useful content to add from being blocked as well. Except in the case of really bad offenders (blatant sockpuppets, serious BLP violators etc) I think vandals shouldn't be blocked without a final warning. I know plenty of editors I respect don't agree, but personally I think Wikipedia's current rules do work very well; compare Wikipedia's (relative) stability to the permanent block/unblock/delete/undelete wheel-warring of somewhere like Conservapedia. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You may come to regret your position in time, but thanks for being aware of the issue as it was discussed above. ThuranX 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC) ( not a threat, just an observation about the trends discussed above growing, and more events being likely to cause regret.)

(outdenting for the heck of it.) A K12 is my stupid typo. A "K-12" is a school that services both primary and secondary school students. So, we're dealing with anywhere from kinderartners to 12th graders (K-12).-- Sethacus 03:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users on one account

Topsecrete has admitted that there are five users on that account and at least one has written an article about himself Waleed A. Samkari. Any input on what to do? IrishGuy ^talk 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... block it as a role account? That's what I'd suggest. Group editing is generally frowned upon, as I understand it. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure that an actual Jordanian general would be farting around on wikipedia, and taking direction from Topsecrete. This looks more like a group college students with an interest in those subjects, probably living together. It also sounds like he is admitting to some possible accidental role accounting, rather than intended account sharing. There is a positive contribution history, so maybe getting a commitment to log out when the user leaves his computer, and a commitment to not use each other's accounts will resolve the problem, rather than a block. Dean Wormer 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I read it as As a group they decide what to be written and that then one particular editor makes those edits under above username. In all other case each of them has their own login. Agathoclea 08:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoax article, possibly from a banned user

User:HDHandshhadsn has posted a new article called Pickles and Prickles Time which is a totally unverifiable hoax. There is a banned user who used to post nonsense articles about non-existent Cartoon Network programming; I suspect he's back under this totally useless username. --PMDrive1061 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing message at Talk:Child abuse

I ran across this message over at the talk page for Child abuse posted by a newish user named Chatterson. I know Wikipedia isn't a help line, but on the off chance this is sincere... He's since removed the message. Any thoughts on what to do? AniMate 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Call the cops. We have no idea if this is fake or real. If its real, then this is a child in need, and if this is fake, its a terribly sick joke. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I requested a CheckUser to get the user's IP address, if someone can make the call. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be worth posting a message on the user's page saying that if it is serious, they should contact appropriate authorities, if it's a joke, it's not funny. Please note that the user blanked his earlier post. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But do we have any guarantee they're still on that account? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One for WP:LAME

Thedocjd (talk · contribs), Medicalhistorian (talk · contribs) and multiple anon IPs are tag-teaming to get round 3RR in adding an unsourced redlink to Dr Joseph De Soto to assorted articles. (Hueneme High School‎, Oxnard, California, List of Mexican Americans, List of notable Hispanics from the United States, Berkeley County, West Virginia, Gerrardstown, West Virginia is a representative - and not at all exhaustive - list.) From the username of Thedocjd, I think there's a reasonable possibility of a COI here, too.

I've semiprotected the two that were coming under the highest volume of IP edits, but as Thedocjd account is a couple of weeks old, it's not affected and is continuing to re-add the link. I am extremely reluctant to full-protect any of these articles over such a trivial matter, but the edits aren't disruptive enough to warrant breaking 3RR over. This has been going on for over a month now - the earliest I can find dates from 15 August - so it doesn't seem like they're going to get bored and go away any time soon.

Thedocjd also appears to have a history of POV-pushing and serious BLP violation on other articles as well (e.g. [41], [42]). Much as I'm sorely tempted to hardblock everyone involved until they can come up with reliable sources for anything they add, I don't (sadly) think that's fair. Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, given the established pattern of contempt for Wikipedia policy. Review welcome, of course. Raymond Arritt 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I note, per here that Iridescent is considering a block before utilizing the full array of warnings, to give a new editor all the available chances to become a good editor. ThuranX 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio by Geniusd402

The above user has been uploading copyrighted images of Alexz Johnson to show her appearance in violation of WP:NFCC#1, ignoring talk page warnings. To circumvent the WP:NFCC#1 criterion, he began uploading these images under fraudulent free license, which I warned him about on his talk page. Not long after I warned him, he uploaded Image:Alexz lauren2.jpg under fraudulent free licnese (the image even has the watermark of the copyright holder) and inserted it into the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA "vandalizing": an editor I blocked that I almost kinda sorta mildly regret (maybe)

Need a double-check on myself, if you don't mind.

Earlier today, I indefinitely blocked User:Hopeshopes for vandalizing RfAs (example). It wasn't until after I'd blocked Hopeshopes and reverted all his edits (either by rolling them back[43] or striking them out with a note[44]) that I realized he wasn't inserting new content (such as "gay" [45]) into the RfAs, it was converting existing words into the strangely formatted version.

Very curious, and I semi-regret going off on him as much as I did... but, looking at his contribution history, his only edits have been to "Strong Support" all the open RfAs (and in half of those, he was also converting choice words to the strange script formatting, usually "bad words" of some sort). So, I might have nailed a SPA by accident, which is good, but not for the right reasons, which is bad... gah.

Second opinions are exceedingly welcome. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What in the world would be the point of scriptifying bad words? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that was done so that people editing while under keword-based restrictions from parental controls will be free to edit the page..? You Can't See Me! 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt do anything for me... should it? Viridae^Talk 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Make them stand out. Anyways, I'll support this block once I get this big mallard off my desk... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just see the code. Firefox perhaps? Viridae^Talk 02:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain that Wikipedia filters out <script> tags. There's too much potential for trouble otherwise. --Carnildo 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting RfA and no constructive contributions. WP:RBI and move along, lads. Raymond Arritt 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IP editor removing valid sources from an article

I noticed King Kong Appears in Edo earlier at AFD, and some references were added as a result of the AFD keep getting deleted by an IP editor. I checked the references and they are reliable, one of them is text taken from a reference book about King Kong which mentions this movie (there are actually two books which reference this film in Gooble books). Can this article be protected, at least until the AFD is over, because the IP editor seems to be removing the references in order to influence the AFD, ie make the article look unreferenced, so less likely to be kept? Masaruemoto 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. People can dispute them on the talk page, or at the AfD — just not in an edit war. --Haemo 04:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong

Would someone please ask User:Ryulong to unprotect his talk page at user talk:Ryulong. He has had it protected for over a month now and it makes it impossible to respond to his, well let me just say it makes it impossible to respond. 199.125.109.35 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While I should remove the semiprotection on my talk page, I have specifically requested to you to make any correspondence to me on your talk page, where I initiated the discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's against the letter and spirit of the protection policy? ➪HiDrNick! 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While not why. Viridae^Talk 08:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

! It took me over a minute to parse your comment, Viridae. I even Googled the phrase "while not why" thinking it might be an idiom. You mean '"While" not "why"'! That makes much more sense; sorry Ryulong, I misread your reply. ➪HiDrNick! 09:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why does asking someone to respond on their talk page make it okay to protect your talk page for a month? You are certainly with in your rights to ask someone to respond in the way you want, but it's unacceptable for you to use your sysop bit to force someone to acquiesce to your demands. Further, Dr. Nick is right that semi protecting a user talk page for an extended period of time is violating the protection policy. Natalie 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C. McCarthy

User:Larryfooter is constantly updating this article with a straight copy and paste from http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?attrib_id=9716. It was speedied for copyvio on the 20th Sept. Originally added by this editor. If I can use that term. I recreated it as a stub article, sourced the bio in references. Then the copyvio got put straight back in again. Can we please keep an eye on this editor? Personally, I'm tempted to block them for good, but instead I'll note the incident here and ask admins to make a decision on what to do. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IP user apparently wikistalking Rktect

I noticed an odd additon to CAT:CSD and found that the IP editor who sent the linked article to the deletion queue has been following a certain Rktect around, removing what looks to be sourced content and leaving edit summaries to the tune of "Reverted continued additions of OR and POV by User:Rktect." I need to get some sleep before work tomorrow, but if someone in a brighter timezone could look through the edit history of 209.244.42.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and make "corrections" as necessary, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 06:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to go too, but any admin who handles this should look at the situation in depth. Rktect has a long history of adding... "idiosyncratic"... perspectives to articles in this general topic area. In the past his perspectives have not necessarily been supported by the sources he provides. Thus, the IP may be making legitimate corrections. Or not. Again, it will take some digging. Raymond Arritt 07:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that as I was inadvisedly spending even more of my sleep time on Wikipedia. The block history of Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does make me a bit more uneasy about the quality of his or her edits. There is a problem brewing here, though, and it would be good of someone who actually should be awake right now to see if they can get to the bottom of it. Good night, all. --Dynaflow babble 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

that particular article was deleted as CSDA1 by Jreferee at 2:55 despite a hangon by Dynaflow. The article does looks somewhat incoherent to me, but not necessarily hopeless. DGG (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Looks like Rktect has possibly violated his or her Arbcom ban against editing articles on weights and measures: diff. --Dynaflow babble 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [EDIT:] He or she is also creating preferred versions of articles in his userspace (User:Rktect/Ancient egyptian units of measurement, User:Rktect/mile, User:Rktect/History of Measurement, User:Rktect/pous, User talk:Rktect/cubit, User:Rktect/degrees, User:Rktect/Imperial Unit, etc.) that he would otherwise be barred from editing. He or she is even creating new weights-and-measures articles in namespace: diff. More: diff, diff, etc. --Dynaflow babble 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now also reported at WP:AE. --Dynaflow babble 08:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for violating the ruling - this is the maximum the ArbCom ruling allows for. Neil ム 08:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Math rulles

Resolved

Using the account only for vandalism. Have had to revert all his edits. --Endless Dan 12:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV next time please. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation is as much of a mess as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation denialism was. This recently deleted page was resurrected by User:Digwuren, and the debate has been degenerating swiftly, with people accusing each other of "transparent provocations", leaving "keep" comments twice, and soliticing support on their national noticeboards. In response to my concerns that the debate is dominated by ethnic cliques, someone started spamming links to the Romania-, Hungary-, etc.-related noticeboards, although the page appears to have nothing to do with these countries (which are not even mentioned in the text). As a predictable result of these attempts to inflame the debate, a clowd of Transnistria-related warriors arrived to argue whether the Commies were much more wicked than the Nazis, and a passerby proclaimed that he read an article in a local newspaper which concluded that "Hitler and Stalin were both equally bad". This off-topic bickering is really distracting and annoying. In short, I request a neutral sysop to keep an eye on the page, lest it degenerates into a new Denial of denial of occupation/liberation-type saga. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wathing over it, and I'm sure some others are doing so too. I picked this up through an RfA, so I think I', very neutral here. Maxim_(talk) 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, considering that it was you who demanded to have me "banned of the project" earlier this month on this very noticeboard and that you seem to be close with Giggy, who controversially promoted the page to good articles before it was speedily delisted. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. To clarify things I would like to note that Neutral Administrator means administrator who agrees completely with Ghirlandajo but not with his opponents. Not to inflame matters just to clarify the situation and to avoid further confusion. Suva Чего? 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Describing [46] as "transparent provocations" is obviously accurate. Your baseless accusations about "attempts to inflame the debate" are nothing but attempts to inflame the debate, and your attempt to discuss a content matter on this noticeboard is forum shopping. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, this isn't the place to spill disputes. Maxim_(talk) 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is not him who brought it here this time, and he has a good point about inflammatory tone of Ghirla's message which has no place here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, indeed. The conflicts between you and Digwuren now has an ArbCom; one would hope we wouldn't see you guys still reporting each another here all the time. Sigh. That the AfD is not going as you'd like it to is not a reason to complain about it here. And I wonder why don't you complain that the debate was also "spammed" to Russia-related noticeboard? It is common to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting to announce deletions in related projects; those which don't have deletion sorting sections use main noticeboards. Please don't use derogatory words like "spamming" when talking about perfectly normal practices which even have their own dedicated WikiProject.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please stop taunting. There is no complaint, just a plea for additional oversight. I don't care about Digwuren inasmuch as I did not care about Molobo, Bonaparte, and other tendentious editors whose activities you were at paints to encourage in the past. I am disappointed that you chose to ignore my concerns about your unqualified and unmotivated support for Digwuren's actions, no matter how disruptive their may appear to a wider community. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just chipping in as the speedy delister - I delisted it for the two {{cn}}s and the one {{OR}} that were on the page at the time of delisting. If I knew that an Eastern-European user had added the tag (due to the eternal war of attrition), I would've put it on GAR. Still, it can't be un-unlisted now due to the edit war over it. Will ^(talk) 13:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)