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

IP 12.10.34.242

That IP is held by a large law firm. It seems someone at the firm has recently discovered how to edit Wikipedia articles. Most of their edits are really vandalism ast listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.10.34.242 I sent an email to the law firm and someone else warned them on their talk page. 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 once again

Giovanni Part One

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think we have a problem here. The user was blocked by me for 48(oops) 24 hours edit warring over a sockpuppet tag on his userpage. He has many confirmed sockpuppets, such as...

• BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...and some suspected such as...

• Professor33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's edit warring over his page is unacceptable. He resumed edit warring as soon as he got off the block. Look at his block log, it's very long... What should be done with him? --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you claimed that NPOV77 is a confirmed puppet of mine? Where was this confirmed? I think you will find that this is one of those in the "suspected" category. You know, no evidence, other than the "secret liguistic" evidence presented by ideological opponents who would rather I not be here to make it easier for them to bias articles with their POV. But, confirmed, No, never has been. I also note that you say 'he has many confirmed socket puppets, such as (naming two (one false), so as to suggest there are more than two--which is not true. I suggest you retract your statement, and I give you the benefit of the doubt of an honest mistake, since unlike others, I do assume good faith.Giovanni33 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni has two confirmed puppets, and ten suspected ones. And I hasten to add that they are not suspected simply because they have the same POV. Alienus, who sided with Giovanni, and reverted to his version, was never suspected of being connected to Giovanni. Neither were Agathoclea, Drogo Underburrow, or Robsteadman. AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about community ban time. He was given the opportunity to come clean about his sockpuppets and turn over a new leaf, but chose to keep up the same old behaviour. He's obviously a smart guy, but he's a net negative at the moment. Rebecca 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

unjust labels of this nature, false to their core, will never stay if. I will fight it along with all unjustice with my last breath!. That's what he says regarding the tag. I think it's ban time too. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But, ofcourse. That is your plan and desire, is it not? If you can't kill the message you kill the messenger. Nothing surprising there. Ban me for objecting to a false label on my own page alleging untruths? But its good to see in the clear the real goal and motive. Truth and honesty is always refreshing.

You also fail to mention that your block was issued by you while you were a party to the dispute to give you an advantage in the content dispute. How is this within the "rules and guildines?"

Turning over a new leaf? Yes, I did, however others did not. That is why they pursued me to my own user page to insult me with a label that purports to make a claim that is about 8 months old!! Yet, it is only now deemed necessary to affront my user page with it? No logical answer has yet been given for this odd timing, other than the obvious reason that such a scarlet letter serves to futher insult and humiliate, to poison the well to whoever takes a look at my user page. Indeed, its precisely because I "turned a new leaf" that I am not confronted with this user page personal attack on my good name. .Giovanni33 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm making no further replies to you. I'll let other people judge the situation as it stands. --Lord Deskana (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to reply to me. I'm asking to you review the statements of facts you are making, which severely undermine your crediblity, which I assume is an honest mistake on your part. So, don't reply to me. Just correct your own mistakes, which I do you a favor by pointing out.Giovanni33 09:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deskana's 24-hour block of Giovanni was most definitely not to gain advantage in a content dispute. Giovanni had reverted seven times within a 24-hour period, when Deskana got involved, and warnings had been sent to his talk page, so Deskana could easily have blocked immediately. AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Giovanni33 for one week...feel free to extend to indefinite.--MONGO 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 should be blocked until the very moment he admits his puppetry, at which point he should be welcomed back like the prodigal son, without prejudice.Timothy Usher 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work to do in that department...Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Giovanni33--MONGO 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the user identifies all sockpuppets and is at some point unblocked, are you offering to do the mentorship? Jkelly 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But it is the right course: blocking is preventive, and once the offender confesses and repents there is no further need for a block. Such is the creed of the Church of WIkipedia :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't say I wish to devote the time needed to monitor this editor, not with the history of prolific sock creation to evade 3RR and to give appearance of concensus where there isn't any. Just this month, besides the Giovanni33 account, this editor has apparently used two other accounts as well, and this is well after previous blocks for similar nonsense.--MONGO 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I hope Essjaybot II's feelings won't be hurt, but I've undone the archiving of this section! I was getting ready to make a comment, and found it had been archived after one day. (I had previously been thinking that Werdnabot was over hasty in archiving after two days!) I've also changed the heading from "{{userlinks|Giovanni33}}" to "Giovanni33 once again", as it makes it possible to get directly to this section from the little arrow when looking at the history of the page. (Hope you don't mind, Deskana!) I think this discussion needs to stay active for the moment. AnnH ♫ 10:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now confirmed Professor33 as a sockpuppet of Giovanni33, and NeoOne, and CleanSocks. Given the continuing sockpuppeting, I don't see any other choice except blocking. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have extended the block to one month from today due to this.--MONGO 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni Part Two

In case people don't know, Giovanni posted to Danny here saying he wants to prove his innocence by showing that BelindaGong is a real person (faxing marriage certificate, and IDs), so that she can edit here again. He seems not to understand that her existence does not prove his innocence. As documented in various places, he was warned repeatedly, from 16 January, that he was violating 3RR, and continued massive violations. On 23 January, he was sent a message saying that he had reached his maximum number of reverts allowed under the 3RR policy,[1] and less than half an hour later, BelindaGong, from an IP, did "rv to better version. I've been following in talk page".[2] She then registered an account, and made a total of five reverts in just over four hours, and started following him to other pages, to help with votes, and reverts, while they pretended not to know each other. Likewise, with his "friend" Freethinker99. Giovanni wants him to be allowed to edit again. His short career on Wikipedia consisted of:

1. turning up at the Christianity talk page when Giovanni was blocked for puppetry, saying he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni,[3]
2. reverting to Giovanni's version,[4]
3. saying he had read the WP:SOCK policy,[5]
4. saying "Geez, thanks. It really makes me feel welcome as a new user." when the issue of more sockpuppetry came up at the talk page[6]
5. making more talk page posts in support of Giovanni
6. this awful signature blunder, which was followed hastily by this
7. saying that he had written the message referred to above, for Giovanni[7]
8. saying that he had allowed Giovanni to use his computer to write that message {well, which was it?) and acknowledging that he knew Giovanni[8] after it had been discovered
9. making two more reverts[9] [10] and several more talk page posts
10. being blocked

The problem with Giovanni is that he seems not to be able to acknowledge that his behaviour has been problematic. For over five months, he denied any wrongdoing with regard to the Belinda and Freethinker puppetry. He posted things about how had had violated 3RR once or twice in the very beginning, when he didn't know the policy, despite the fact that there are numerous diffs to show how he was told about the policy and continued grossly violating it. (See here.) After about five months, he finally acknowledged that getting his wife and friend to join and support himi was a "mistake". He claims that he didn't know that the Belinda meatpuppetry (if that's what it was — there's some indication that he made some of her posts using her account) was wrong, although there are diffs to show that the WP:SOCK policy (which also forbids accounts created by friends for support) was explained to him at the time. He also carried out some rather unpleasant trolling at SlimVirgin's talk page, when she temporarily left Wikipedia, and he took up residence at her page and started telling everyone that this was just emotional manipulation, and that she wouldn't admit it yet but she was going to come back, and that if it turned out he was wrong, he'd convert and be a good Christian, and then started reverting her when she removed his taunts.[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] He was completely unable to see that it was objectionable, and started complaining about "censorship" and "abuse" and how he was going to "pursue this abuse in the appropriate manner", and even asked someone else to revert for him.[24]

Jayjg suggested here that he should be indefinitely blocked until he admits his sockpuppetry. There was considerable support for that proposal. I was hesitating over it, knowing myself to be in content dispute with Giovanni, and unsure as to whether forcing him to own up would be preventative or punitive — and then Werdnabot came along and archived it. Another sockpuppet has been found since. Is there any solution other than an indefinite block? On the one hand, Giovanni is not a vandal, and his talk page posts, though they're frequnetly objectionable with jibes about the moral and intellectual superiority of atheists over Christians, do not approach the aggressive, abusive hostility of, say, Alienus or FuelWagon. On the other hand, he frequently posts taunts at talk pages frequented by Christians, for example that Christians "don't like to talk about their origins. hehe", that when he looks at the Eucharist, he doesn't "see red blood cells. hehe", that Chrisianity is like believing that the moon is made of cheese, or referring to the Bible as "this particular book of such depraved moral instruction" etc. He has a history of reverting people who remove unwanted posts from their own talk pages. He has insisted on posting REALLY long essays (sometimes more than 3000 words) to "prove" that his POV is right, or pasting long sections of text from some website, again to prove that he's right, and sometimes cross-posting to other talk pages, despite being frequently told that the talk pages are for discussing possible improvements to articles, and not for determining which POV was the correct one. He was asked on various occasions[25] not to clutter up pages, and to link to other material instead of pasting it, but he kept on doing it, and sometimes even re-inserted it after someone else had removed it. [26] [27]. He is a notorious edit warrior, and sockpuppeteer. He has shown through numerous untrue statements that he cannot be trusted. Almost all his edits are connected with his POV on religous or political matters. His very high average of edits per page suggests that he's here for a purpose. You never see him doing chores like stub sorting, reporting vandals, copyediting uncontroversial articles. As David Gerard has said, "He's here to push a POV and will sock frantically to do it; he's not here to write an encyclopedia for anyone else."[28]

For months, we've had to deal with new users suddenly turning up to revert to Giovanni's version, and making the same spelling mistakes and showing the same mannerisms. Any tell-tale sign that he has been made aware of has been corrected. For example, after I drew attention to a post where MikaM finished a sentence and started a new one with a lower case "hehe", no puppet ever did that again. After I drew attention to the fact that BelindaGong, MikaM, Kecik, and Freethinker99 all had redlinked userpages when they turned up to support Gio, his next six (RTS, NPOV77, HK30, Mercury2001, Professor33, and NeoOne) all edited their user and talk pages as first and second edits before coming to Christianity. After I drew attention to the fact that Kecik had 27 reverts to Gio out of 29 article edits (and then 28 out of 30, 29 out of 31, etc.) and that he had never edited an article that Giovanni wasn't at, he made three very minor edits to other pages, and Professor33 took care to make a small number of edits to articles about Global warming (unconnected to Giovanni) while following Giovanni to other pages, reverting for him, and telling other editors in very Gio-like language why they were wrong and Gio was right.

If there were some way to block all his puppets as soon as they appear, I'd be happy with leaving Giovanni unblocked. He's definitely the main account, and when he's blocked the others don't show up to revert for him. But as he's completely unrepentant, what's to stop him from simply creating more? AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see here that the ArbCom said "A user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." I challenge anyone to examine Kecik's contributions side by side with Giovanni's and conclude that there's no connection (quite apart from the linguistic connection, and the similarity in location of IPs for logged off edits, which I have asked someone with more expertise to confirm). He has 45 article edits, of which 40 are reverts to Giovanni. The first thirty had 28 reverts to Giovanni, and two minor edits, made shortly after reverting. These edits were at Christianity and Adolf Hitler. In an edit war on something I know nothing about — whether the Nazi regime was fascist or totalitarian, he showed that it wasn't just in theological matters that he happened to agree with Giovanni.[29] (I stated that I would not take sides in that, as I had no opinion, although I was part of the opposition to Giovanni's efforts to say that Hitler was a devout Christian.) After I had pointed out repeatedly on talk pages that his edits were almost exclusively reverts to Giovanni (see also the two edit summaries, side by side, in this edit), and that he never edited anything that Giovanni didn't edit, he made his very first non-Giovanni-related edit[30] after almost four months on Wikipedia. He then made two more minor edits, unconnected to Giovanni.[31] [32] — nothing like contributing content. In the meantime, he turned up at God, supporting Giovanni in his campaign to insert a link to a "create-your-own-God-it's-fast-easy-and-fun" website, and then turned up at Hitler's Pope to revert for Giovanni, there.

He has twenty talk page edits, on pages where Giovanni was meeting opposition. They are the talk pages of Early Christianity, Christianity, Transubstantiation, and God. He always arrived at those pages only after Giovanni. He has fourteen user page edits — mostly removing puppet tags from his own page or those of Giovanni's other suspected puppets. I don't consider that that's compelling evidence of his puppetry, though, because if (and I mean IF) he were innocent, it would be a natural reaction to want to help the other "innocent victims". And he has five user talk page edits. I find it particularly significant that his seventh edit was to vote for including Giovanni's "the-transubstantiation-doctrine-evolved-from-pagan-cannibalistic-rites" POV[33] and that MikaM's sixth edit was a vote at the same page, even though the talk pages they started off at did not link there, they would be unlikely to stumble across that page by chance, they did not have e-mail enabled, and no message about it had been left on their talk pages. MikaM started off at Christianity, and then followed Giovanni to Transubstantiation, Early Christianity, Adolf Hitler (where, like Kecik, she didn't just share Gio's POV on religious matters, but also on the fascist versus totalitarian issue), Homosexuality and Christianity, Jesus, Pope Pius XII, and the relatively-obscure Hitler's Pope, which Giovanni had discovered. She also has the same linguistic idiosyncrasies, and seems to post from the same area.

This has been going on for months and we've been powerless to do anything about it, so I hope we can find some solution before this section of the noticeboard is archived again! AnnH ♫ 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest an indef block. He is not here to help write an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do not see that changing. I do not think any other sanctions will work because of his love of abusive sockpuppets. I am open to better ideas. FloNight ^talk 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Duh duh duuuhhhhhh....! Thewolfstar.

User:KingWen popped up around today and picked up Thewolfstar/Lingeron's torch. Edits and style are nearly identical. The user talk page edits are almost exactly the same style: see here. What articles does this user immediately begin editing? Why, Democratic Party (United States), attempting to remove the historical basis of the party in Jeffersonian government; Anarchism in the United States, giving Jefferson that good 'ol anarchist pedigree (with almost exactly the same edit summary); Anarchism, making the same edits as Thewolfstar/Lingeron (sorry, WP:AGF; she magically found them from weeks ago and thought that they were so great that they should be reinserted); and so on. This one seems like a no-brainer, but I would appreciate it if someone else took a look at it. --AaronS 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and wha....? --AaronS 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, she might actually be juggling two accounts. See User:OceanDepths and edits like these where they piggyback. --AaronS 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've strongly suspected KingWen of being Thewolfstar since she first showed up on User_talk:WillMak050389. (OceanDepths I have no opinion on right now). It's either her or another environmentalist religious Jeffersonian anarchist with a strong penchant for user talk chit-chat and fiddling with various user talk subpages. Sigh. Now, do we block now or wait to argue with the trolls first? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Block now, if its so obvious that they're thewolfstar socks. WP:IAR. ~ c. tales *talk* 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Block now. And Abunchofgrapes, if you are referring to me, I'm sorry. — Deckiller 04:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't, I promise. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I ran into them on Talk:Capitalism. I thought I smelled something fishy. The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked KingWen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Maggie's farm grows many socks. Another head of the hydra gone. More to come, no doubt. Geogre 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point, we probably need another checkuser to put to bed her claims that we're doing this without evidence. You know, because she's not accepting the fact that she just jumped onto the scene a few days back and started pushing the exact same edits that Lingeron and Wolfstar did as evidence. And she considers it a coincidence that she's spouting the same rhetoric about the featured article review on anarcho-capitalism being an attempt to "destroy the article." So maybe we should checkuser her. Or maybe just lock her talkpage because it's not like Lingeron accepted a checkuser last time.--Rosicrucian 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not needed. It's obvious enough, especially considering their comments towards me on their talk page. There is no doubt this is thewolfstar. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I already requested a checkuser two days ago, so we'll see what happens. The talk page discussion is precious; I hadn't noticed it, before. I guess we're pretty evil. --AaronS 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph

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

In the edit summary to this edit the user referred to a fellow editor as "fjeldape" which means mountain ape. This in it self is not good, but when you factor in that this is a nationalist derogatory term used in Denmark against Norwegians it becomes highly unaceptable. The reported editor is Danish and the editor which was labelled a mountain ape is Norwegian. The editor has been warned against personal attacks numerous times, but has removed many warnings from his talk page. He is presently blocked for 3RR violation, but a reaction for this violation would be in order as well.

The user has been involved in a handful of articles now and the mode of operations seem not to improve. Frequent reverting sometimes just within the 3RR, sometimes braking it. A common trait is also personal attacks against editors disagreing with him.

A third point is some of his random insulting edits such as [34] [35] against muslims and his entries of 17:42, 30 June 200621:32, 30 June 2006 and 13:49, 9 August 2006 to the Turkey article.

He has been involved on this page on the following occasions before: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive122 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125.

Sometimes administrators have given him warnings which he has broken without penalty and sometimes administrators have stated that penalties would increase if the mentioned behaviour continued, but that has not been followed through. He is frustrating and using up time for many editors and not showing any signs of improvement, but adminstrator involvement has been short. I fear that he will be alowed to go on just because of the narrow nature of the articles he is involved in.Inge 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see that Comanche is currently under a 24h block. Just to get the record straight from the beginning: I had a long discussion with Comanche yesterday (see Talk:Denmark-Norway), which became a rather frustrating experience. I'm worried about the attitude he has shown on Talk:Viking Age, Talk:Scandinavia and other pages. Some time ago I wrote a long message to him trying to persuade him to become more friendly [36] unfortunately without success. (To be sure he understood it, I wrote it in Danish, and any Dane, Norwegian or Swede can confirm its contents since our languages are mutually intelligible). His later edits prove that he *did* read the message since I asked him to simply ask people nicely "what is your source for saying this or that". Now he uses this phrase [37] but it seems like he simply ignores information that disagrees with his own views.

Since I'm a Dane, I can confirm that "fjeldabe" is an offensive and derogatory term used against Norwegians, and its use here is highly inappropriate (Inge's translation is correct: it literally means Mountain Monkey / Mountain Ape). He has accused User:Inge of being a nationalist before, and this really bothers me, since Inge is a very fine contributor. For my part, I am frustrated. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This case is slowly exhausting the patience of the community, and as time passes, it becomes more and more alike to others of edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing (User:Molobo comes to mind). In just 2 months, he has already served 6 blocks without showing any signs of improvement in his attitude, and he continues to defy at least 4 different, non-negotiable rules. I think the next breach of NPA or 3RR should be accompanied by a longer block as means of giving him time to examine said policies in detail, as well as the potential consequences if he continues to ignore them. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nod. I'd support a fairly long block (measured in weeks not days) as the last step before indefinite. ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for getting involved. I really appreciate that. It sometimes gets lonely when dealing with Comanche cph. I have the view that he should be given a longer brake from wikipedia now. Action speaks louder than words when it comes to this editor and he has been given many such chanses before. He has been given so many warning of the type "if you do this one more time...." which have not been followed up that I don't think he respects them. I believe he has been given too much slack already. I was very surprised when his "joke" about muslims linked to above didn't earn him a long block or even a warning. The mountain ape thing on its own deserves a long block. Inge 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

user talk:Comanche cph is now on my watchlist, and I'd also support a long block if the racism and abuse continues. --ajn (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Sharon and Lar here, this is just becoming tedious. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If even Phaedriel can't see the good in this user then a block must be a foregone conclusion. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a long block at this point or even an indefinite one. He's had many second chances now and his behaviour has not improved. I'm also hard-pressed to find a single unquestionably useful edit from him. Haukur 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind the admins he does have an IP which will need to be blocked as well. There has been (2) accusations he is using sock puppets. The one is linked on the IP page Inge thinks is his (User_talk:194.255.124.250), the other has been resolved (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Comanche_cph). --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well now he's back. His second edit was to remove the warning I put on his talk page for his personal attack mentioned above. Inge 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He is also continuing his revert tactics...Inge 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well now he has removed the warning I gave him not to remove warnings. This is not a good start...Inge 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks because you have used so much time on me. I have had probelms with my way to talk with "some" other users. (Does who make unsourced and wrong edit's). I have allways made a joke on the page Turkey. (nothing harmfull). Sorry to that.

I will keep moving all user:Inge edit on my talk page. That user seems to have pested me since i'v made my early edit in moving some wrong edits from that user. I don't move warnings from my talk page witch comes from a moderator/administrator. But since Inge have made many attacks and fake warnings on my talk page in hope to get me banned. I will not tolerate that user on my talk page. Thanks and have a nice day. --Comanche cph 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I have also seen a fake accouses that me and user:supermos should be same person. That is not true. --Comanche cph 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Comanche cph, as I tried to tell you on your talk page, warnings are not issued in order to attack you or try to get you banned. They are issued in order to let you know what is and is not axceptable behaviour and to let you know when you have crossed a line. That way you will become a better editor. Inge 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i should put some warnings on user:inge talk page for all the unsourced edits on wiki and fake adminstrator recalls on me. Hmm, no! I will not sink that low. --Comanche cph 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for continuing disruptive edits.--File Éireann 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My take is that non admins making informal warnings can well have their warnings deleted, but if they have a concern they should ask (here) for assistance, as Inge has done. Admins making more formal warnings should not have warnings removed without some evidence that the warning was read and understood... removing a warning unread or with an insulting edit summary is, in my view, cause for a block as the user is showing that they do not intend to heed warnings or change behaviour. Inge is not an admin. I am. I have reviewed this users contributions and while there have been some issues in the past I wasn't able to spot recent issues that clearly called for a warning, other than the Turkey (bird) one given above ([38]) which I did issue a mild warning about... Do you have recent diffs that might show this? ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS snicker at the new standard of irredemability: "If even Phaedriel can't see the good in this user..."! Nice way to turn a new phrase JzG... ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The drop that caused Comanche cph to be reported this time was him calling a fellow editor a "fjeldape" which means mountain ape in the edit summary to this diff. If you look at the very top of this entry you will see a more in depth explanation as to why this is a very bad thing to do. Inge 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Inge, Barend. I can only say that I am so extremely sorry seeing this word used against any Norwegian. Please don't doubt that the average Dane both likes and respects Norway and its people. For what it is worth, please accept my apologies on his behalf. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Other than also being a Dane, you have no connection that I know of to cph, so it is not your place to apologize for him. You did nothing wrong and shouldn't feel guilty for what he says. More to the point, you shouldn't apologize for him because he might not change his behaviour in the near future. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no connection to him at all, except that we are both Danes. However, I felt that somebody had to say something, so it might as well be me, so "for what it's worth" does in this case equal something very small. I did not enjoy making that post, believe me, but I like seeing Norwegians being offended even less. Would I have preferred to see the real thing? Yes, by far. Do I think it will happen? No, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cardsplayer4life for the third time

Arbitrary break one

Cyde has now blocked User:Cardsplayer4life for a week for, in his words, "Sock puppetry and block evasion, CONTINUED violation of copyright policy, as confirmed by CheckUser". Here's a timeline of my interpretation of what Cards says happened.

• 22:50, 8 August Cardsplayer4life reinserts the sports logos into the article
• 23:30, 8 August 2006 Cards makes his last edit for the day
• 03:47, 9 August Kelly blocks Cards
• 15:48, 9 August Cards comes back to the computer but isn't logged in. He checks the sports page he edited the day before and finds that his edit was reverted without an edit summary. He reverts back with a similar edit summary as before.
• 16:15, 9 August Cards now logs in, sees he is blocked and makes a contrite message.

The alternative theory, which Cyde assumes is true above, is that Cards was logged in, received the message saying he was blocked and logged out to intentionally evade his block. In that case the IP address in question would have been recently used by a blocked user (to receive the message) so the autoblocker should have prevented Cards from editing with it. You can see above that Kelly is puzzled why this didn't happen.

If the charitable interpretation above is accepted I think Cards should be unblocked again. The things that might count against it is that Cards has previously edited through his IP address to complain that "the moderators suck", perhaps indicating that he intentionally uses it for edits he wouldn't make with his user account. The lack of autoblock can be explained by Cards logging in and receiving his block message at another computer than he usually uses. I don't have access to checkuser data and I don't know exactly how the system works so a) I may have assumed something that isn't correct and b) it might not be possible to tell anyway.

In any case I'll take no further action in this case. Thanks to everyone who commented. Haukur 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

• • 22:43, 8 August 2006 images back into Southeastern Conference
• 22:50, 8 August Cardsplayer4life reinserts the sports logos into the article
  • 23:26, 8 August 2006 images into Atlantic Coast Conference
• 23:30, 8 August 2006 Cards makes his last edit for the day
• 03:47, 9 August Kelly blocks Cards
• 15:48, 9 August Cards comes back to the computer but isn't logged in. He checks the sports page he edited the day before and finds that his edit was reverted without an edit summary. He reverts back with a similar edit summary as before.
• 16:15, 9 August Cards now logs in, sees he is blocked and makes a contrite message.

Arbitrary break two

I neglected to mention one obvious thing which I'd better spell out. It's inherently unlikely that Cards would happen to have been logged out and then happened to edit the one page which would get him into trouble unless he had a habit of editing IPnonymously, which hasn't been established. It would seem likelier that he noticed his block, felt it was extremely unfair and decided to evade it, then calmed down a bit and wrote his reply. On balance I would still prefer to unblock the person but I find it unlikely that I'll be able to get a rough consensus for it so I'll go and do other stuff now. Haukur 09:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it depends on how we define "rough" doesn't it? - brenneman ^{L} 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion isn't acceptable and never has been. Furthermore, I recommend that you look at that IP's edit history. This isn't an isolated incident. Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the IP's edit history as I lay out above. Haukur 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Go back a week. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did. In the post above I quote a week old edit from that IP's edit history. I said: "The things that might count against it is that Cards has previously edited through his IP address to complain that "the moderators suck", perhaps indicating that he intentionally uses it for edits he wouldn't make with his user account." If there's something else you want to particularly draw our attention to then please go ahead. Haukur 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, missed that. No, that's about all. I'd actually considered posting earlier recommending a long, healthy block on the IP address since it's used for disruption and disruption alone. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This kind of behavior qualifies as disruptive sockpuppetry, for which we tend to hold the main account responsible, particularly if there's overlap in the edits. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the use of the images is a violation of our copyright policy, Cardsplayer4life was engaged in an edit war. Whether logged in or not, he should have known that reverting was a bad practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't think it's worth a week-long block. And at least he used detailed edit summaries while Kelly reverted him with the rollback-tool. Haukur 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say edit warring over copyvio content while using a sockpuppet (which has been revealed to be a disruptive sock in other issues) is worth a week-long block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not a copyright violation - it was content that was arguably against our policies (though even that is disputed). The sock, if you want to call the IP address that, was not disruptive. The worst it did was saying "the moderators suck". Haukur 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: we have an editor who engaged in a brief outburst. The sock allegation has a semi-plausible innocent explanation. He shows evidence of contrition. He is engaging in reasoned debate. He has a fair amount of sympathy. Without for a moment criticising AMIB's block, which seems to me to be justified certainly then and there, could we also agree to unblock? The reason for blocks is to prevent disruption and it seems unlikely at this point that further disruption will occur; it would also seem appropriate to keep Cards on a short leash for a ehile. If he reforms, then we have done a good job and can pat ourselves on the back; if he does not then we will surely have unanimity for a future block. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Zur? Cyde blocked Cards, not me. I'm just wholeheartedly supporting that block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I meand Cyde, of course, but got distracted by the Man In Black in your sig :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, we hand out milder punishment for worse offences all the time. The damage was microscopic, the editor (mostly) congenial, blocks are only preventative. Explain to him that his chances with regards to fair use are well and truly used up, if he says "I understand" we unblock. It's pretty simple. - brenneman ^{L} 14:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support unblocking as a probationary measure. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm repeating my support for an unblock from one of the threads above, just in case, as this issue is all over the page. Mark Dingemanse supported it too btw. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

What I find most troubling here is the conduct of Cyde- he seems almost gleeful about the block, and he's going around picking on people who supported unblocking. This is conduct most unbecoming an admin. I just re-read his RFA and found significant opposition to him based people seeing him as sometimes uncivil and overly confrontational. It saddens me that rather than taking this criticism to heart, he's just continuing in his ways. Friday (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some links to gleeful/taunting edits, since I'm too lazy right now to find them myself. (We tell noobs to bring diffs when they post here, just spreading the love.) brenneman ^{L} 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just check Cyde's contributions. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs means diffs. --Cyde Weys 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying, rather clumsily and clearly ineffectively, to point out that you have not been picking on people who supported the unblock. I see one relevant User talk: contrib, and your conversation ended on a mutually respectful "agree to disagree" basis. I honestly don't know to what Friday is referring. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh whoops, I thought you were implying that all of my recent contribs were gleeful & taunting. My bad :-P Cyde Weys 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I left off the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags. Trying to be subtly sarcastic just doesn't work I guess. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an incredibly biased sequence of events. It's missing the other times he reverted to fair use image galleries in violation of policy, as well as the incredibly wonky wikilawyering on his talk page. He made the same excuses for his behavior before and after his anonymous edit, not even fessing up that he had done anything wrong at all. And of course, there was the promise he made before the anonymous edit not to do it again if were unblocked ... though he then went on to make that revert anonymously, rather than even waiting to be unblocked. What we have here is a classic troll trying to widen rifts in the administrator community by playing the innocent user struck down by tyrannical actions, when the truth is anything but. --Cyde Weys 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have got my timeline mixed up but from all I can see the promise you refer to was made after the anonymous edit. Could you clarify with diffs? Haukur 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've spun out the timeline and added Cyde's diffs. Feel free to improve it. - brenneman ^{L} 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clear up a very important misconception. It has been argued above that Cards should have been caught by the autoblocker. Recent improvements in the blocking mechanism allow blocks which don't affect logged-in users, therefore Cards wouldn't have been caught by the autoblocker. That's what happened in this case, which is why I reblocked the IP last night with all editing disabled. That block has run out by now of course, and with a block in effect on the actual username is now moot in any case. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And now, I highly suspect, but cannot prove, that our buddy Cards went through a Tor proxy to make the same reversions again. The edit summary language is very similar at the least. --Cyde Weys 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are a few other users with this particular bug up their butt. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what gave them the idea that trying to make the edits on anonymous proxies would help resolve anything. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothign like goign through a proxy to lose you any friends you might have had :-/ Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is spread all over the place, but as Bishonen noted above, I also support an unblock at this point, because the week-long block by Cyde was clearly placed as a punitive, not a preventive measure. This goes against the blocking policy. To all involved getting a little heated, I think WP:COOL might offer good advice, in particular its tips to 'take it slow' (point 3) and to 'sometimes just walk away and leave it to others' (point 8). This case is not as urgent as the heated discussion here makes it out to be. In the meantime, though, let's make sure that we don't have a fine editor blocked over this for a week. — mark ✎ 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You're accusing me of what? My fear is that, given this user's lack of qualms of using proxies or anonymous IPs to make his reversions, if we unblock him, he's simply going to do it with his main account. That is preventative, not punitative. If you look on his talk page he's already made the comment, "I was trying to revert the page that I had already been trying to revert. I just went straight to the page and reverted it." That's a direct quote from him. He doesn't even care about discussing any of the issues, he just wants the page to look the way he wants it to look, policy be damned, and he really only considers these blocks a temporary measure preventing him from doing so. Why in the world should he be unblocked? --Cyde Weys 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He didn't do anything bad after I unblocked him yesterday. In particular he didn't revert the page in question again and his only article-space edit was perfectly fine while his other edits were mostly gracious. Why not give him a chance? If he really does go and revert the page then you can just block him again and there'd be next just about no support for unblocking him. Haukur 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This user doesn't strike me as simultaneously technically savvy enough to go through a proxy and silly enough to make the edit yet again. This might have been some random person trying to stir up more trouble (looking around, sure enough, the usual suspects are already discussing this case). I still say we assume good faith and unblock him. I won't do it myself, though, since I was the one who did the last unblock. Haukur 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to assume good faith in the evidence of bad faith is lunacy. Even without the anon proxy edits it's obvious that this user isn't here for the good of the encyclopedia. Go read some of his statements on his talk page. He doesn't care about discussing, he just wants to revert things so quickly that sometimes "he doesn't bother logging in first". He's a revert warrior. And he certainly doesn't care about any of the relevant fair use issues. And you should actually try using Tor; it doesn't require being technologically savvy at all (unless being able to download, install, and run a program counts as "technologically savvy", but plenty of people have managed with Firefox, AIM, et al just fine). --Cyde Weys 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, continuing to assume good faith in spite of evidence to the contrary is the whole point of the policy. It's appropriate to stop assuming good faith once the evidence for bad faith becomes clear. Quill E. Coyote 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel you are mischaracterizing the user. He has many useful edits. He's clearly here to help build an encyclopedia. He's never been blocked before or even received a warning. Haukur 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This TOR business seems a bit previous, can you provide any evidence? - brenneman ^{L} 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP involved 217.173.129.76 (talk · contribs) is on the Tor open proxy list here (at least as of this timestamp; I assume they change). Thatcher131 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. So the suggestion now is that this user is really really dumb, and logged in via TOR to repeat the exact actions as before, knowing that there are like two hundred eyeballs on this, probably knowing it would be reverted. Patently ignoring that there is strong support for unblocking them, to boot. While of course it's possible it's also not easily falsifiable.... Sorry, but that stinks more than a high summer roadkill skunk. - brenneman 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the first good evidence I've seen that he may have been using a tor proxy to evade a block. It's not conclusive, but it's strongly suggestive. If he is really that stupid (and on this question his edits from 68.32.79.169 are telling), he'll continue disruptive editing and will trip up again soon. So no great harm, having tagged the fish and noted its characteristics, in throwing it back into the river on this occasion. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Brenneman and Haukur: bad faith has not been demonstrated, let alone use of a Tor proxy. Being blocked brusquely may have caused him to evade his block but hey, that's no reason to place a week-long block. I propose to make it a 24 hour block at most, i.e. to lift the block today without further ado (Cyde tells he will be watching him very carefully). As far as I know, Bishonen, JzG, Haukur, Brenneman, Mackensen, Thatcher131, and Friday support unblocking at this point. Can we move on? — mark ✎ 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

I have unblocked CardsPlayer4life based on the apparent consensus in the discussion above. While recognizing that there are suspicions this user may be 'more deliberately nefarious' than some think, I believe we run little risk by stretching AGF a bit further. The actual 'damage' the user has done to date was infintessimal... all of five minutes work to address, if that. Our more lengthy disagreements about how to handle him are not his doing. Allowing the user to resume normal editing should thus, if anything, reduce the amount of effort being expended here... we can stop hypothesizing/debating and simply observe what he does going forward. --CBD 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable in the circumstances. Particular attention should be paid, however, to any further attempts by that username or the associated IP number to introduce unlicensed material into Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking editors of anarchism-related articles

I was recently blocked by Stifle for violating WP:3RR on anarchism. Stifle was acting in good faith, and I don't contest the grounds of the block, as he understood them. However, I was reverting the edits of the socks of banned users Thewolfstar and RJII or Hogeye. All three of these users are notorious for ban evasion, as well as for disruptive editing. I'm not sure as to whether or not Stifle was aware of these facts.

I was blocked yesterday, because the obvious sock of one of these sock puppets reported me to WP:3RR. Stifle apparently did not look to deeply into the matter. It seemed obvious to him that I was simply violating WP:3RR. But, I was not. I was reverting the edits of a banned user's sockpuppet, which is a clear exception.

I urge administrators to understand the context of the disputes surrounding these articles. It's very disappointing to find out that you've been blocked for trying to help out. Even the most partisan editors, who are polar opposites, manage to make progress. Only these banned users, and their sock puppets, cause problems. I see more and more good editors of these articles leave Wikipedia out of frustration because nobody is taking the time to understand the disputes, regardless of a number of requests for mediation, requests for comment, requests for arbitration, and more. It's like Groundhog Day: the same thing is repeated every day. --AaronS 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: per a user's suggestion, I made this a bit shorter. --AaronS 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of blocked users' edits and reversion of vandalism is not subject to 3RR. Perhaps a note on WP:3RR that this particular article gets a lot of contention? I think people shy away from the mediation, in fact, because it's such a viper's nest over there. Is the Mediation Cabal still operating and still manned by well-meaning folks? All Anarchism related articles need a wet blanket thrown over them to extinguish the flames. Geogre 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and an interesting suggestion, as well. We've got some more neutral editors working on them at the moment, and that seems to have helped quite a bit. It is a bit of a hornet's nest, but for the most part, everybody gets along without causing disruption. It's just that two of Wikipedia's most notorious trolls happen to be very attracted to this part of the encyclopedia. I'm going to suggest adding that note to WP:3RR. --AaronS 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of historical interest, Anarchism has always attracted the most dedicated warriors (well, except maybe fascism). Today, we have these two, but in the past we had others. No "fart" scribbling vandals, these. These are the ones with a set jaw and an inexhaustible amount of time online. Special kevlar and asbestos ought to be awarded for any neutral and careful people who edit there, because when an editor there goes bad, he or she seems to go all the way bad. Geogre 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think any non-self-declared anarchist who gets involved with that page deserves some serious kudos (and protection). If I weren't an anarchist I'd probably avoid it like the plague. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I say we permanently protect all the anarchism-related articles and assign the job of editing them to a university professor somewhere. After all, the editors there have demonstrated conclusively that anarchy cannot possibly be a stable form of government. ;-) --Carnildo 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Bring in the philosopher-kings. =) --AaronS 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, I wonder about that sometimes. But in real life, it's easier to kick a trouble maker out of a group than it is online when that trouble maker can come back cleverly disguised (although they rarely seem to do so cleverly). Also, there's the whole idea of autonomous communities--in the real world the rival factions would just go form seperate communities, but we've only got one page here (and if we had more they'd be deleted as pov forks) so we're stuck with each other. Sorry, I know I'm taking this too seriously ;) Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be fooled by AaronS. He claimed in the comments next to his edits that I'm a sock trying to get around a ban but I'm not. I consider the allegation a personal attack. Hopefully he sincerely thinks I'm a banned sock and not just making a false claim in order to delete the edits of other users with impunity. You could say I am a "sock" in a sense because I use different usernames when editing articles that may get me in trouble in my professional life, like the anarchism article. But as far as I know there are no policies against doing that. But I am not banned and have never been banned from Wikipedia. AaronS shouldn't be throwing claims around like that and system operators shouldn't consider the claim to be true without evidence. The system operators did the right thing by banning him. That'sHot 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

*yawn*. By the way, that comment about protecting your professional life is silly. It implies that you either (a) edit under a different user name while at work (which makes no sense), or (b) your employer knows your "real" Wikipedia user name and monitors its activity, even when you're not at work (which is a bit far-fetched). Who do you work for, the NSA? --AaronS 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Striver's additions to Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Striver (talk · contribs) originally added this comment saying that the terrorist plot foiled was an attempt to get Europe to attack Iran and mentioning a "Pearl Harbor 3", to Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. It was later removed for its irrelevancy, but was subsequently re-added by Striver, who said not to remove comments from talk pages and added an "I told you so". I commented that it should have been removed, and another user concurred, citing that talk pages are not soapboxes and that they're for talking about articles. Then, someone else removed it again, citing the prescribed concerns. Striver re-added the statement, again saying not to remove his comments. Half an hour later, yet another person removed the statement, but User:Irishpunktom reverted. In an edit conflict (I didn't notice the previous two edits), I removed the statement and then explained to Irishpunktom the rationale; I also copied a similar message to Striver's talk page, after seeing that he re-added the statement yet again. Striver responded on my talk page, saying that talk pages are for discussing points-of-view. Once again, yet another editor has removed the statement from the talk page, but I don't picture this being the end. I'm not going to continue to remove Striver's comment (especially since others will anyway), but I think it's quite clear that people want the comment gone. But Striver seems reluctant to accept that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight: He's making these comments on a talk page? Not the article itself? --Kbdank71 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Correct. It appears Striver may have given in as he has changed his statement. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the comments, but aren't talk pages meant to be for discussion? If the comments didn't border on incivility or personal attacks or disclosure of personal info, why should they be removed from talk pages of articles, provided they are related to the discussion? --Ragib 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • That's what I was thinking also. --Kbdank71 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point, but here was my assessment of the problem with the comment. And given the number of times it was removed, people obviously saw it as a potential issue (although perhaps it was just Striver's persistance that suggested to them that perhaps it didn't belong). I personally don't have a problem with him mentioning a conspiracy theory, even if I don't agree with it. But the manner in which he says it and his persistance with pushing the idea that it is true, calling the situation a psyop, could potentially attract even worse debate. Of course, you are free to disagree. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving it rather than deleting may be preferable if people actually start responding to it and it disrupts discussion of the article. Without reliable sources (which I seriously doubt will be forthcoming) this doesn't stand a chance of getting into the article. JChap T/E 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what's said above -- talk page comments are generally excepted from the usual rules -- but I also think this should go into the "Striver file," as the fellow has a pretty serious desire to see the boogey men and hobgoblins discussed everywhere, and he has been disruptive in the past. If he goes beyond muttering and into harassment or more fringe article writing, he may need a mentor -- if one were available and acceptable. Geogre 18:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

His constant POV pushing is not likely to attract many people interested in helping his cause. However, I don't like seeing dissent silenced, so, as long as he sticks to the talk pages to discuss bizarre changes, maintains civility and doesn't become disruptive, then it's no big deal.--MONGO 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't mean to silence dissent, I'm sure. It looks like the current post is reasonable as it doesn't silence dissent, but also doesn't go over-the-top with the idea that he's right. From here, people can express their disagreement (or agreement) with the theory, if they want, until the cows come home; no need to remove Striver's comment now, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Striver Wikipedia's resident conspiracy theorist? Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the more prominent, sure. But that's just fine; there are plenty of conspiracy theorists in real life, and no matter how wrong or whacky most people (including me) think they are, having those opinions represented and aired here is healthy. Georgewilliamherbert 06:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Aren't talk pages supposed to be for discussion?" Yes, but they're expressly meant for discussion of the article, not its subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but summarily removing comments that are not personal attacks on the basis of their irrelevance is unacceptable. Who's going to determine what's relevant and what's not? That's pretty subjective. I'd just go ahead and follow Geogre's suggestion of "adding it to the Striver file", which is already quite thick. Pecher ^Talk 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth man

The user User:Laurentdion has began a series of childish attacks on me after I posted a comment asking as to when the AfD would be closed, seeing as the Afd has been opened for 8 days. He has begun to go to other websites I have posted to and post information from there as a means to disparage me. I have warned him on his talk page with the npa, npa2 and npa3 templates. Wildthing61476 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not personal attacks... that's stalking. Rather more serious, IMO. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can check my talk page for more of his actions in regard to the contested deletion of the Earth man and Dion Laurent articles. He keeps blanking his usertalk page, so you have to dig in to find the info there, but I would certainly prefer not to have to hear from him anymore. He has recreated the deleted article once already today and is generally ignoring rules and guidelines, as well as being creepy and rude. Richardjames444 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Laurentdion posted personal information about my employment along with racial epithets on my talk page. Can we consider a short term ban to settle him down, and then let him participate again on civil terms in a week or so? Richardjames444 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

noted from comments on other pages that he seems to have abandoned this user ID and has taken a new one, after a final wave of vandalism to the archived Earthman AFD debate and some user pages- user:bucketsofg and user:Danny Lilithborne were both vandalized after offering help and advice. Hopefully his new ID will be civil and constructive. Richardjames444 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarastro777's user page

This user's user page is dedicated to personal attacks and divisiveness.The user had originally posted a diatribe, basically accusing all non-anti-Israel editors as pawns in a vast conspiracy to modify wikipedia. Another user, User:Oiboy77 who frequently edits hand-in-hand with User:Sarastro777 added a list of what he called "rogue admins". This was removed three times [39] [40] [41] by three different editors as an attack. Sarastro restored the accusation. Sarastro also exhibited poor knowledge of wiki policy and guidelines, with edit summaries such as “What part of bad form to edit other people's userpage do you guys not understand?? Leave it alone! Nobody but me.. everyone is asked to cease” [42], in contradistinction to the wiki policy on user pages and WP:OWN, which was pointed out to him on his talk page [43]

Now the user in engaged in adding a list of snippets from the various editors he disagrees with, and collecting their arguments with him, both on his style as well as on his content, and liberally intersperses his "editorial" commentary on many of them.

At this point, I believe the user is engaged in a gross violation of WP:NPA, WP:Civility, WP:AGF, etc. and I think the user page should have this type of material removed. -- Avi 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support an enforced blanking of that page. --InShaneee 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. El_C 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He's put it back (which I've rolled back), and is arguing ownership. If there's no objection, I will protect if he puts it back again. --InShaneee 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The ownership is by the "Community", by bypassing the steps to Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, you have deemed yourself as "the community" and essentially used your admin tools to try to win a content war with protect. This is not the purpose of the page protect. Sarastro777 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

"If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here..." (Please stop posting on my userpage otherwise. You are misinformed.)

Admin User:El_C misused protect to take the upperhand in what is clearly a content dispute after blanking my page. This is a matter of a handful of people upset over what is admittedly controversial material. Wikipedia was made specifically as an open tool to cover controversy. [[44]]

First, I documented Megaphone desktop tool which is hardly an accusation against ALL or even necessarily any Israeli editors. I highly resent your mischaracterization of my sourced material and making me out as some kind of lunatic conspiracy theorist. This is documented and cited in the article here, on my userpage, and from major media outlets.

Second, you are including information written by someone else and using it against me. I have no association with User:OiBoy nor any control over anything he has added. Saying we edit "hand-in-hand" is at best a malicious lie. Just as I cannot prevent you from blanking my userpage, I cannot prevent him from adding things. I requested that ALL editors stop adding material (like this), and now you use this as a basis for another attack against me as claiming ownership. This issue of User:OiBoy being associated with me is a red herring argument to bias other people against me. I have never restored anything he added to my userpage.

Third, the so-called "personal attacks" are in fact quotations by other Editors with some wording I use in some instances to summarize their actions. "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." WP:NPA I am allowed to share my opinion on matters relating to Wikipedia on my userpage, as is specifically cited as a purpose behind the userpage and is documented on the bottom of my userpage, where you are asked not to blank material. "Another use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia." WP:USERPAGE There are no personal attacks.. I don't call anybody names nor do I attack them. The only things that are "personal" are actual quotations from other editors which is their own words, placed by them in the history record. I have every right to recount these as I see it pertains to Wikipedia, especially on my own userpage.

This ADMIN is bypassing steps to Dispute Resolution by mischaracterizing my actions, and acting as sole judge, jury, and executioner. Repeatedly blanking content on a userpage is arguably Vandalism. Now he has used protect in a content dispute to force the matter to his liking in a persistent state.

Sarastro777 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a content dispute, a conduct dispute. El_C 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Misc Related Conversation

The links are all there Sarastro, the user history cannot be hidden. Please read the links I posted a number of times on your talk page, and see that in this situation, the community is allowed to take action against the fact that you collect these remarks and responses from all over wikiedipa to paint those who disagree with you poorly, as well as what I feel is the insulting ad hominem intimation that all such editors are Israeli pawns. You are beholden to process just as the rest of us are. -- Avi 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage is protected until Sarastro777 demonstrates that s/he is prepared to bring whichever pressing issues to dispute resolution. El_C 21:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's first address the misinformation:

• "all such editors are Israeli pawns." -- Something never said, again "intimation"/"Your perception"-- not said, not my opinion.
• I have nothing to do with Oiboy or his edits. I defy you to show something from the edit history where I restored a change he made to my page. In fact I specifically asked all other Editors to quit editing the page altogether repeatedly. Let's quit pretending like this isn't known, if you have something that shows otherise then post it, else you need to quit perpetuating the lies.

Now we can address the hypocrisy:

Controversial material is protected by a somewhat judicial system of Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Instead of following this, Administrators have now vandalized all content off my page, put a burden on ME to follow dispute resolution. I don't have a dispute with my own content. The people with the dispute are the people blanking my page. This is as clear as day a twisting of the policies designed exactly to protect this kind of content.

On Wikipedia, and its sister projects, you are welcome to be bold and edit articles yourself, contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way. So go ahead!

Pretty pathetic that not only can I not edit, the Dispute Resolution system is bypassed to censor me, and I cannot even include anything on my own userpage.... all done by somebody with a picture of Commandante Che on his webpage. The irony is all the self-proclaimed free speech experts, anti-vandalism unit members turned into censors is beyond belief. All it took were just a few quotes lifted precisely from discussion. I guess people with ugly faces can't look in a mirror. Sarastro777 22:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, this page is not the part of the Dispute Resolution process that you need to be pursuing in order to get your userpage unprotected. Making unfounded [or at least unsourced] accusations of hypocrisy here is not going to do your case any good. Take a break, if you need to, and come back with a cool head. If you're incapable of reaching an agreement with the protecting admins, then you need to take it to RfC, not here. Cheers, Tomer^talk 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are involved with a project on Judaism then you have a potential serious conflict of interest, as the material in question deals with "Jewish Activists" deemed in the media to be colloborating with the Israeli Gov't. We need comments from people without identifiable sources of possible bias. It's nothing personal, but the possible bias is obvious enough. Hopefully you can understand that. Sarastro777 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Because I'm a member of WikiProject Judaism I have a "potential [sic] serious conflict of interest"? In what material? There is no material in question. All I have said is that this page is to give notice to administrators of activities of interest. It is, categorically, not a part of the dispute resolution process. I have no interest, nor I'm sure does anyone else here, in your comments about "people [with] identifiable sources of possible bias", as they're not only an obvious strawman, a violation of WP:AGF, an identifiable possible violation of WP:NPA, a clear breach of WP:CIV and can serve no rhetorical function other than to poison the well here. That said, I'll paraphrase myself for your benefit: either take this opportunity [not on this page] to resolve your dispute with the admins involved, or take it to dispute resolution [again, not this page]. TIA. Tomer^talk 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a dispute with my own content. The people with the dispute are the ones that have blanked the material from my userpage. They have bypassed Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution which is why we are having this discussion right now Sarastro777 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You do indeed have a dispute by virtue of displaying your criticisms of specific editors on your userpage; in order to take this dispute to its logical conclusion, you need to go through the formal DR channels, which also allow for others to comment. It cannot remain in stasis. El_C 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I find Sarastro777's complains about alleged bypassing Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution particularly funny in the light of his active participation in this recent ArbReq. I already commented on his behavior there and sorry to say that it didn't improve. And now this adorable Jewish conspiracy mongering and calling WP admins "fascist censors"... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One would think our involvement in your arbitration hearing, and your "material" on the page that has been blanked would be grounds to recuse yourself from leaving comments like that on grounds of conflict on interest. Sarastro777 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see: so anyone who had the insolence of responding to Sarastro777's unfounded (this is per ArbCom) accusations, or who is "involved with a project on Judaism", cannot comment. Thank you for making this clear, let's make it a policy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It obviously still pains you to recall that in fact another Editor initiated the Arbitration and I merely provided some material I felt they would find relevant to the accusations. If I had understood the process better, the 'evidence' would have been presented from the get-go. Sarastro777 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Living Person: Barbara Schwarz

This article has verifiability and neutrality issues and there are few reliable sources that are not primary sources.

Background

• Schwarz files a lot of requests for information under FOIA
• She has sued over her FOIA requests
• Someone claiming to be her on google groups, says the purpose of the requests is to prove she is
  • the granddaughter of Eisenhower
  • and daughter of L. Ron Hubbard.
• The sources for this article are sparse
• The article has survived two deletion discussions - and I think she deserves some kind of article
• Main source is article in the Salt Lake Tribune (official version - pay to view full text - potential copyright vio) about her activities
  • She sued over the article and lost on summary judgment and the appeal (Memorandum Decision)

The tone of the article is not good, and my efforts to whittle away at it yesterday - get some sourced, delete some eggregious stuff - gained little headway. I made another attempt today here. Any advice/clarification/etc would be appreciated --Trödel 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Niuke it. The principal source is a copyvio, life's too short. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That is just about certainly really Schwarz on usenet. The article (last time I looked at it, during the most recent afd) definitely at least needed npov cleanup. I've read a bunch of Schwarz's legal filings and they're as bizarre as they sound (the stuff about Eisenhower, the stuff about being married to Marty Rathbun and trying to get him out of the clutches of supposed Scientology kidnappers, etc). Schwarz has been agitating for a long time to get the article deleted, and per her less-than-extreme-notability and Formosa's Law, that might be the best solution. Any new article should be closely sourced. Her FOIA stuff has been written up in various legal journals and doing a closely sourced article should be possible if someone insists on doing that. I don't think the article is terribly valuable to the Scientology series. Schwarz is very visible to Scientology observers because she's a heavy poster to the Usenet group, but her actual effect on things has not been all that large. Phr (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor not made aware of public accusations

Why is it that I discover now that various colourful accusations have been made against me? Did anyone think to notify me? Was I to be sentenced in absentia? This is utterly ridiculous and exposes the very worst of Wikipedia. I expect comment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't attibute to malice that which can be easily explained by ineptitude. Everyone assumed you knew about it, so no one contacted you. There is no cabal. --mboverload@ 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I did not participate in the thread, I did read it, and I too assumed you were aware. Sorry -- Samir धर्म 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But Samsara, you did know about it. This appears to be you taking part in a discussion about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up twice? In that diff, you see me respond to a comment by KarlV. Even if I do now see that someone made a reference to ANI in that same discussion, I should not have to go to the German Wikipedia to get my news, should I? Interesting that you were the main inquisitor. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where was I the main "inquisitor" and why is it "interesting"? Are you maintaining that pschemp, with whom you edit closely, didn't tell you what you were being accused of? Are you saying you edited a page about it on the German Wikipedia, but didn't read it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, Samsara is a big boy. He can read for himself. Why would I tell him about anything? pschemp | talk 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, having you put words in my mouth is my favourite past-time! Big hug. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, and to be honest, it's this attitude that has caused a lot of the problems. You're an admin. If another admin asks you a question, the best thing is just to answer it. It's not a trap, just a question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly great to hear that you're such a specialist in assuming good faith. It will help you avoid questioning other admins' actions in future, and save everyone a bunch of time! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, please don't edit the archive where the discussion took place. You should respond here on the active page. If you want to quote part of the old discussion so you can make a comment or reply, that would be better than editing the archive where no one will see it. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers, I said quote part of the discussion. That was a bit excessive. (I'm sorry I brought it up). Thatcher131 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:KarlV again

(see [45] for the history of this) KarlV has now posted this on his user talk: "Dear all, I didn't intend to engage in WP:POINT. I was just checking that the same mistake didn't appear in the English Wiki as it had in the German one. I'm sorry for breaking the 3RR rule and I undertake to edit within the policies from now on. My imperfect English led me to call what I was doing an "experiment", which some people have taken the wrong way. I won't make that mistake again, and I apologize to all concerned for the confusion I caused. Please can I be unblocked? Kind regards --KarlV"

I raised it on User talk:Pschemp and User talk:Lar (the blocking admin). I happen to think the user's statement that he won't repeat the behaviour should be taken as evidence to review this block; I think "When he apologizes for inciting people to label me and Samsara neo-nazis I might consider a shorter block, but unblocking right now is unacceptable." is over-severe of pschemp. It seemed to me that it was mainly the user's use of the word experiment that led to him being accused of breaching WP:POINT, and I certainly don't think he will repeat it. User:Lar suggested I bring it back here, which I agree with. Could we please review the current indefinite block? Thanks --Guinnog 23:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Pschemp is absolutely correct to place this condition. "Neo-nazi" is a very severe label that can cost people their jobs and livelihoods. As we have seen (in my case on two occasions), witch-hunting is still very much alive. The label should never be used carelessly in the way KarlV did - in his case implicitly (which is worse!). No go-ahead from me until that condition is satisfied. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the "mistake" KarlV is speaking of in the passage above? That internment camp be changed to concentration camp? El_C 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The only mistake he is admitting to is using the English word experiment. Hardly an apology. pschemp | talk 00:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm refering to mistake1 (aka experiment) — "was just checking that the same mistake didn't appear in the English Wiki as it had in the German one." El_C 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors were calling the camp a "concentration camp," although none of the sources were calling it that. Yes, I agree the block should be reviewed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be very clear on this. You maintain that User:KarlV had the correct view on the issue, but he did not make any effort to improve the article that he maintained was wrong, nor did he provide any direct evidence that the definition given in that article was wrong (the definition of concentration camp which seems to be the centre of the initial controversy). But you can now read the entire discussion, revived as requested for endless hours of reading pleasure, below, so we need repeat none of it here (although, be my guest!) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vagueness is KarlV's special skill. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did the quoted passage above come from? Can the author link a diff for it, so that we can orient oursleves time/space-wise? El_C 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:KarlV, if you mean his apology (and that's his second). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in a clear account of the "mistake," concretely, concisely, and in English. El_C 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear and concise to me. And it is in English. I also think it's only fair to take into account that, though he ruffled feathers, he actually was right on the content dispute, has apologised for the stress he caused in the way that he did it, and has undertaken not to do it again. What more could we want? --Guinnog 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could enlighten the rest of us, then. El_C 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read his manifesto and follow-ups on the German Wikipedia? I hope you can read German, because I can't translate it for you (he has declared he will not accept any translation made by me as valid). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Material written in German is of no use for me. El_C 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you mean what KarlV regards as the mistake, I don't know. If you're asking what happened: in brief, KarlV was told that some far-right editors had managed to become admins on the English Wikipedia. Karl had had difficulty removing "concentration camp" from the German Wikipedia (with regard to a British internment camp), and he was told it'd be even harder to remove it from here because of the right-wing admins. So he came here to remove concentration camp from Bad Nenndorf, and to see whether he would prevented (none of the sources call it a concentration camp). Samsara and pschemp reverted him. He violated 3RR. Samsara blocked him for 24 hours. Then pschemp blocked him indefinitely for WP:POINT. Samsara also posts to the German Wikipedia. I don't know about pschemp. I asked pschemp to unblock because she was involved in the content dispute. For that reason, Lar took over the block. That's it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the reason given by him for removing it? On what basis did Samsara & pschemp revert? El_C 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He argued that the sources didn't call it a concentration camp, and he was right. I don't know why Samsara and pschemp reverted him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We reverted to stop an edit war while which term was correct was being worked out. Since when is it crime to stop an edit war so discussion can happen? That is the action that got Samsara and I labeled as a right-wing admin (ie. right wing in German means neo-nazi). Once again, the content is irrelevent, its the experimenting with Wikipedia and subsequent suspicion cast on people trying to improve an article that was his violation. And once again, the original block didn't happen until after the content dispute was over and the current article with NONE of those words was agreed on. I want a personal apology for his actions as they led to two innocent admins being accused of being a right-wing neo-nazi. I can' think of anything more disruptive and harmful. pschemp | talk 00:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How can reverting someone stop an edit war? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was he who was reverting without discussion. And he who broke 3RR without discussion. Stoping reverts between him and Burke's Peerage is sensible while working to come to a consensus. pschemp | talk 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So, on what (content-related?) grounds did you revert him? El_C 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't related to content. I don't give a crap what term is used, nor did I ever. I just wanted the constant reverting between him and Burke's to stop while the correct term was worked out. Which it was, and its now not an issue since everyone agrees on the current article. pschemp | talk 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you issue protection, or did you only revert to Burke's version (the original version?). El_C 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No one had to protect because KarlV broke 3RR. It never got to the point where protection was needed. I suppose I could have protected but instead i asked him to stop reverting. I always think of protection as the very last resort. pschemp | talk 00:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But you still reverted to Burke's version (the original version?) ? El_C 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, while the discussion was going on. Since when is that a crime? The world won't stop because something is incorrect while the issue is worked on. That version didn't even last the night. This is a wiki for God's sake, things change. I ended up changing it myself later as the discussion went on. pschemp | talk 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a crime, I'm only trying to doublecheck the facts, still (i.e. the original version?). El_C 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a bit short with you, but if you work through the edit history of the original article, its pretty clear who edited what when. I'm a bit upset with being labeled a right-winger for trying to do the correct thing, thus my patience is worn. pschemp | talk 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply do not have hours to spare to methodically research this dispute, which is why I'm trying to circumvent that lengthy process by asking questions from the pertinent parties. El_C 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case you may also want to note that this is the first time either Samsara or I have ever edited an article even remotely related to concentration or internment camps or anything in that genre. Not to mention we both endorsed the current article which uses totally idfferent terms. Not exactly the actions of people pushing right wing agendas. pschemp | talk 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reflect a moment on why this discussion got so long. It was because people did not research their facts before they went to battle. It could happen to you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to discussion

See [46]. I'm sorry that there is now no other place to view those changes, or to reply. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a place to view it, in that diff, for example. Reviving that entire thread (which I have already read) is too taxing for this board. El_C 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, you say above that you weren't aware of the previous discussion, but you commented on it on the German Wikipedia. Can you explain, or have I misunderstood something? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm... No? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to edit the archive. You've added: "All it would have taken for the dispute to be settled without upheaval was for KarlV to supply two reputable sources that give a definition of concentration camp that would have put that article straight. The fact that he made no such suggestion and simply relied on his claim that the article (concentration camp) was wrong shows his non-constructive attitude that is being discussed here."

Are you aware that it is you who must supply a source showing it is a concentration camp; not Karl to show that it isn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to his attitude on improving articles. Read again and be enlightened. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. All Karl had to do was cite the sources, which he did. They call it an internment camp. He called it an internment camp. He doesn't need to supply a definition of concentration camp. No one was calling it a concentration camp. You seem to have misunderstood our content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand that the whole terminology issue has already been worked out. And I'm sorry but the Guardian did have the words concentration camp in it. Again, this isn't about the content, its about the disruptive manner KarlV acted in. pschemp | talk 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian did not say it was a concentration camp. Please show me a diff if you're saying otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember the Guardian did use some sensationalistic terms ("torture camp" if not concentration camp), but that doesn't make those terms neutral phrasing suitable for the article intro. In fact IIRC when the term was added to the article on de, the article also got added to the German category meaning "internment camps". Btw, I got an email from KarlV that I'll summarize later. I let it slide because the discussion had gone off the radar and he said in his email that he'd be away for a month. Phr (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See the quotes below for where the term was used, however this bears repeating: I didn't say here it was the correct term to use for our article. I'm just saying that no one pulled the term out of their ass. Thus subsequent insinuations that anyone who reverted to that term is a right-winger are incorrect and slanderous. pschemp | talk 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you have completely failed to understand what I wrote. I am not defending the wording. That was resolved long ago. The issue I am bringing up is that KarlV stated that the concentration camp article was inaccurate (by his reading, I am not an expert on the subject), yet made no attempt to fix it, which should have been any bona fide editor's first instinct. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you show where KarlV argued that the concentration camp article was inaccurate? El_C 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[47] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he is asking for a source to demonstrate that this camp was called "concentration camp." El_C 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say in that link that the concentration camp article is wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So what is your concern? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The concern is that I originally asked you to "show where KarlV argued that the concentration camp article was inaccurate," whereas the diff you provided does not appear to show this. El_C 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

pschemp:"And I'm sorry but the Guardian did have the words concentration camp in it" Technically this is true. All 3 guardian refs in the article mention the term:

Declassified Whitehall papers show that members of the Labour government of the day went to great lengths to hide the ill-treatment, in part, as one minister wrote, to conceal "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees I the German concentration camps". [48]

There was also what the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Frank Pakenham, later to become Lord Longford, described as "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps" [49]

As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps". [50]

However, the Guardian never adopted the term to label the Bad Nenndorf internment camp, and if you look closely, neither did Frank Pakenham, the minister in question. --tickle me 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was an the correct term for our article. I'm just saying that no one pulled the term out of their ass. Thus subsequent insinuations that anyone who reverted to that term is a right-winger are incorrect and slanderous. pschemp | talk 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I never said it was an the correct term for our article": Some quotes of yours:

Um, no government calls anything a concentration camp, even when it fits the definition. Its too much a charged word. Should we bow to their cowardice and POV? What I'm saying here, is that we shouldn't be replicating the bias of sources. That does no good for Wikipedia.

"As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps"". Now that is a direct quote from one of the sources, and although the facts are hedged upon, calling it a concentration camp is exactly what that minister did.

that's from one of the sources already listed, not anything I just made up or is unreliable. It isn't OR to call something what it is. matching something with its definition is not OR either. How does this not fit the definition of concentration camp?

--tickle me 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tickle me go jump in the lake. I was referring to this discussion. As a person I am allowed to work through what is correct and change my mind. If you notice, I eventually edited the article to NOT include concentration camp. And it does fit the definition, but that's OR so we didn't use it. Give it up on the content, its already been worked out.

Samsara, I asked indeed for you to be taken to task, you didn't react then. However, you edited Archive126 now, a funny thing to do. You wrote:

""Bollocks. The creator of that passage is User:I like Burke's Peerage [51] and you would know this if you had bothered to check my contribs. I'm increasingly sceptical of your selective use of evidence and that of several other editors here."

Do I understand you correctly assuming that you want me to elaborate on this issue? --tickle me 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but at this point no one cares about your still continual rants about a content issue that has already been decided. That's the wiki process. Live with it. BTW you seem to be accusing people of being right-wingers again. You might want to stop that behavior. pschemp | talk

(moved here by --tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)tickle me)
If by elaborate you mean that you're going to correct your previous erroneous statements, sure I'd appreciate that. If you mean that you're going to tell us further versions of events that deviate from the truth, I'm happy for you to remain silent. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where did I deviate from the truth? When I listed Bad Nenndorf edits, showing that Burkes did the initial forgery, while you did the polishing? (0, ctrl+F for "Samsara polishes it") --tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

--tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Above you just repeated that I should be taken to task, which refers to your earlier statement, Creator of the forgery's first, yet uncut version is User:Samsara, he should be taken to task, that you have never corrected. So apparently, you stand by your statement, which I have shown to be incorrect, yet you simultaneously deny that same statement. What is one to make of you? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"correct your previous erroneous statements" / "What is one to make of you? ": What am I to make of you? I corrected that a week ago. Besides, the mistake occured because pschemp withheld information, when I asked her for the forgery's originator. She chose not to tell me and got rude. She changed her mind though, when Slim asked. As soon as pschemp did tell what she knew, I corrected my error.

You left it unmodified on ANI (now in archives), and pschemp had no obligation to do research on your behalf. You could have checked my contribs and got the answer straight away.

[X] You want to check the definition of "forgery".

Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Slim asked you this on 06:16, 4/8/06:

"And then Samsara tidied the English, [1] adding that the newspaper had provided no evidence, which means he must have read the article. Perhaps Samsara could say which sentences of that newspaper article implied that there were other such camps. That would clear up the mystery."

She erred somewhat with the diff she provided, so she asked the right question possibly for the wrong reason. Is it that because you never answered? Would you mind clearing up the mistery now? I provide the correct diffs again, as I did earlier:

Why did you add a title to the forgery's reference, and why did you add a redeeming qualifier? Both of which you could only do for having read and understood the article Burke had distorted, making pass a neo-Nazi allegation as being a highly reputable newspaper's report. And so you said in German WP:

Ich bin dann die Quellen durchgegangen, um sicherzustellen, dass auch alle Statements durch Quellen untermauert sind

Accurate translation: I then went through the sources to make sure that all statements were supported by sources. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(I then perused the sources to make sure that absolutely all statements are backed by sources)

--tickle me 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For the semantically inclined. --tickle me 11:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're taking statements out of context. Yes, I went through the statements in the intent of removing any that would turn out to be unsupported by the sources. You can go and read the sources yourself if you care. That's why I provided inline references. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You [Tickle me] must really like dead horses. pschemp | talk 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Por si las moscas: Again, I ask all repliers to cite and quote, not to interpost. --tickle me 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, stop interposting and don't edit what I wrote! If you want to argue about the semantics of "auch alle" you're welcome. --tickle me 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

from user talk:Tickle me Regarding this, please don't move people's comments. I don't know what "interposting" is, but I don't think samsara would appreciate your moving of his comments very much. Thanks.--§hanel 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Shanel... moving comments is perfectly acceptable in many circumstances. I do it all the time when a new user posts a note at the top of a talk page rather than the bottom. 'Tickle me' did it here because Samsara had posted comments in the middle of his own (what he meant by 'interposting')... which left 'Tickle me's' comments above the 'interposting' apparently unsigned... or incorrectly attributed to Samsara. See here for the edit by Samsara. Given the potentially confusing nature of such a 'middle post' I don't think moving it down was unreasonable, and reverting the edit Samsara made to >Tickle me's< comments was certainly appropriate. --CBD 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, excuse me?

I strongly appreciate people’s attempts to improve Bad Nenndorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but shouldn’t you be posting on Talk:Bad Nenndorf (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) for that? By the way, is there consensus on what to do with KarlV yet? If not, perhaps a quick survey of condensed opinions (i. e., without several days of threaded discussion in between) might at least provide an estimate of what remains to be dealt with, apart from issues with other editors’ behaviour and the article, of course. —xyzzy_n 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was the first time that he should remain blocked. I don't see anyone new in here saying he should be unblocked. pschemp | talk 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I strongly appreciate people’s attempts to improve Bad Nenndorf...": Nobody's trying - it has been done already, thanks to Karl, among others. Now it's up to evaluate Karl's behaviour's propriety when dealing with Burke, pschemp and Samsara - so their behaviour's propriety is under scrutiny too. --tickle me 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go, accusing people again. How tiresome. pschemp | talk 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all rather pointless. The disputed material was part of Bad Nenndorf but it's now at the completely rewritten (by myself) article Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre, which nobody seems to be disputing now. -- ChrisO 09:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I dispute the propriety of Burke's forging a source and Samsara helping him - and I want them to give sensible answers eventually. I want to know if there's reason behind Karl's motives, even if the involved accuse him of sheer disruptiveness - I mustn't follow suit. He had trouble with them, and I want to know why. And I'm concerned that Burke's actions, not covered by WP:AGF, don't bother most participants. Karl is painted as paranoid. Severe enough a claim to warrant a close inspection of the circumstances, forgery warranting sanction by itself. --tickle me 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not true. I have on several occasions commented on Burke, and he's being watched. However, Burke has so far stuck to policy, and in that line, brought attention to important issues, even though he didn't always get his desired results. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, he forged, and he didn't succeed in the instance on debatte. Forging doesn't equate stucking to policy, afaik. You checked, read and understood the source he forged, polished it and added redeeming qualifiers. That's not commenting as I know it, much less sanctioning. It's chronologically documented in my list. --tickle me 11:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're completely missing the message here. Nobody else cared whether the statements were supported by the sources. I cared. I made sure that there was nothing there that was not supported by the sources. I may not have paid enough attention on whether "concentration camp" or "torture camp" or "internment camp" or "military prison" or whatever else various people (you can't please everybody) wanted to be used, was the exact wording. And what you call weasel words is what I call balanced presentation. I fixed the exact problem you're complaining about. And where were you when this happened? Did you care? Evidently not. I performed a community service, and I accept no criticism for that fact. As I have stated several times, I am not intimately familiar with the subject and have entirely stopped being involved. The only matters that remain to be discussed is the block length for KarlV and the neonazi accusations he has made. Thanks for letting me know about your "list". I shall diligently review it and insert comments as necessary. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks for letting me know about your 'list'": The list is on a talk page that you contributed to diligently before *and* after I added it: what smear is that? "And where were you when this happened? Did you care? Evidently not": what evidence? Have you evidence that I knew of it, then? For what you or anybody could possibly know, I cared as soon as I noticed. What utter smear.

1. Burke's claims that someting is "prooven"[sic], where the source states it's a neo-Nazi allegation, being "utter nonsense".
2. Here the sentence has been "amended" to state that a newspaper (of undisputed repute, cf. Die Zeit) claims something to be true, allegedly, however, "provid[ing] no proof to this charge". The source -surprise- still states it's "utter nonsense". You, going "through the sources to make sure than all statements were supported by sources", as you say, checked the source and added the article's title.
3. Here, you realise that "claimed" is an outright lie, and amend to "implies". However, the newspaper neither claims nor implies - it still calls it "utter nonsense" and leaves it with just that.

I'd rather not see you performing such "community service". Please explain why AGF applies. I'm still not convinced that Karl was mad. As my post might get tattered beyound legibility, I'll store it here. --tickle me 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not see you performing [...] Well, then today is your lucky day, because you don't have to decide what I do. Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Connel MacKenzie comments

• The misinformation put forward by User:Tickle me, User:SlimVirgin, User:KarlV and User:Guinnog is disgraceful. Your synchronized attack edits on this page make me wonder if WP:TINC should be AfD'd. You four are an embarrassment to wikis everywhere, especially Wikimedia wikis. Tickles's and Slim's campaign of misinformation is rivaled only by Nazi propagandists. If KarlV does not wish to apologize, Lar's block should never be lifted. If SlimVirgin (et al.) wish to press the issue, their impartiality (and suitability as sysops) should be seriously questioned.
• User:KarlV obviously has some serious language problems here. The German term doesn't have any currency in English when translated as internment camp; see Internment#Concentration Camp. The English term has propagandist connotations, but is so rare that native speakers invariably do not know the term. In English, the term is concentration camp, regardless of when or where, or under what regime it occurred. In context, I think the Wikipedia article now conveys less information, as a result of having the language weakened (to satisfy a certain Nazi Germany propaganda POV.)
• --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that my request for Karl's indefinite block be reviewed has now mutated into "misinformation". Rather than rehash the whole story, or get into personal conflicts, can we consider that Karl tried to improve inaccurate wording in an article, broke 3rr, got a block for it, and was then blocked indefinitely for WP:POINT because he described his action as an "experiment". As he has now apologised and stated he won't repeat the action he was blocked for, can his indef block be reviewed? That's all.

Connel, your German may well be better than mine but I very strongly disagree with your translation above. I also dislike being characterised as "an embarrassment to Wikipedia". Please refrain from personal attacks and let's concentrate on reviewing Karl's block. Thanks. --Guinnog 09:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And in his "apology" he hasn't admitted that what he did was wrong, only that that it upset people. He isn't repentent at all about the aspersions he cast on the editors here. pschemp | talk 12:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Connel, great to see you back, unfished for as ever, really fine. Less smear and less pathetic, monolingual OR, and you make my day. --tickle me 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should reflect on the occasions that you have described other editors as uncivil. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your sarcasm correctly Tickle, I suggest you stop making personal attacks at every opportunity. Since your points don't stand on their own merit, I suppose you won't, though. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you don't call other's, including me, "fished-for support" - and may be Samsara and pschemp should reflect on calling me dude, pschemp asking me to "go jump in the lake", Samsara vandalising my edits or commenting on them by "bollocks", all of you being admins, here or elsewhere. Connel: would you mind not to smear, alleging that I make personal attacks at every opportunity? Else you might want to present diffs and have me banned for good. Or is it just your -undoubted- magnanimity that spares me from doom? --tickle me 09:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is here. Bollocks are wonderful. :) But seriously, calling somebody's comments bullshit is not a personal attack. Please keep your definitions straight. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Making it simple

The above is an absolutely indecipherable mess. Can't anyone in this imbroglio give a straight answer? However, if I read between the lines and assume the worst then it seems like what we have here is a user who violated 3RR to make a WP:POINT about perceived enWP POV bias, and then accused the people who had edit warred/blocked him of being 'right wing' and/or 'nazis'. Anything else? Because if not... that's not grounds for an indefinite block. Short block for edit warring - yes. Short block for incivility / personal attack - yes. Indefinite block? No. Not unless there is alot more to it. Connel MacKenzie just above stated that users weakened the article "to satisfy a certain Nazi Germnay propaganda POV" and compared various users to "Nazi propagandists". Is that grounds for an indefinite block? Or just really ironic (this 'nazi comparison' is just fine... but that other one demands an indef block)? We block users indefinitely when it is clear that they will never be positive contributors. Can anyone make that claim here? Are there other 'bad acts' which haven't been mentioned? If there aren't then I see no basis for this block to be indefinite. --CBD 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There might be a continental component related to this. Labeling someone as a Neo-Nazi is percieved much stronger in Europe than in the US, and in Europe, can be the end of your career. As such, it should be treated as legal treats, the accusations oversighted, and the accuser indef blocked. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So... you are saying that Connel MacKenzie should be indefinitely blocked? --CBD 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If he accused an editor of being a Neo-nazi without providing evidence, yes. And the accusation should be oversighted immediatly. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let me be perfectly clear: the action of rewording "concentration camp" as "internment camp" in my eyes is viewed as a propagandist action meant to weaken the severity of the atrocity. The term torture camp (note: currently a red-link) is as rare in American English as is internment camp; both seem to have astonishingly narrow usage, while concentration camp is the only colloquially understood term. On that basis, I could suggest "neo-nazi" ties for KarlV and his supporters, but I don't think that I have. Instead, I used strong language regarding the action that was taken. Ironically, KarlV has made those insinuations (from my reading of the translation link below.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A few things. One is that Wikipedia is not limited to American English, it should be general. Second is that I have no opinion about you, but about blocking editors who make Neo-Nazi accusations, and I would have to see any towards you for that matter before I would suggest that you should be blocked. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Since the article is about a German town, the terminology should be appropriate. I am no historian, but afaik, in mainstream German historiography, the term ‘concentration camp’ (in either language) is used primarily for certain detention facilities in Nazi Germany. The use of the term for any other purpose is editorialising at best, and therefore very questionable outside of quotations and quite inappropriate if not adequately supported by sources (which was the case). This is independent of the severity of the atrocities perpetrated by British troops in the Bad Nenndorf facility. How advocating a change from ‘concentration camp’ to an historically more proper term, and, moreover, one supported by sources, could suggest neo-Nazi ties is very unclear to me. —xyzzy_n 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Connel, I don't think 'internment camp' is all that rare in American English. For instance, anyone who knows much about our WWII era treatment of Japanese Americans is certainly familiar with the term. As to suggestions of 'neo-Nazi' ties... any such which KarlV engaged in were, if anything, far more oblique than your statements at the top of the preceding section. He was apparently condemned for, 'being interpreted to imply that he might have been mistaken in his earlier belief that there were no 'right wing' biases in English Wikipedia'. You said that 'Tickle me' and 'SlimVirgin' were "rivaled only by Nazi propagandists" in their 'misinformation campaign' and that the article was weakened "to satisfy a certain Nazi Germany propaganda POV"... which assuredly must imply that someone, presumably those you are disputing, holds such a Nazi POV. Mind you, I don't think this kind of incivility and personal attack is grounds for an indefinite block, though I strongly discourage it, but the marked difference in response to the two situations seems probative to me. --CBD 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The notion that these rare terms are not rare is demonstrably false. 82 vs. 7310 vs. 61,200. (Or 45,600 vs. 538,000 vs. 5,040,000!) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet the term "concentration camp" appears to be nonexistent in reliable English sources when used to label the particular camp in question. It's simple, use the terms the sources explicitly use, that's policy here. HGB 00:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you changing the topic? CBD said my statements were oblique...well, perhaps they were. The specific statement I was refuting was CBD saying "I don't think 'internment camp' is all that rare in American English." His conclusion is obviously wrong. Note also, that the searches listed above do also include some European texts; in American English the difference seems more pronounced. In this discussion, I'd like to emphasize the irony that CBD pointed out elsewhere; that all parties involved seem to be trying to achieve the same NPOV wording. But the European terminology (or at the very least, the German terminology) seems to be at odds with a NPOV American wording of the same concepts. I don't think entry itself has been edited recently; that ship has already sailed. Thanks for the clarification on Wikipedia policy. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 01:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Concentration Camp in english is in the scholary literature used as an umbrella term for various types of camps, including death camps, internment camps, labour camps, etc. In Dutch and German, it is uniquely limited to Nazi Death camps. with thanks to my historian neighbour -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to reviewing the block

• An indefinite block for this incident seems overly harsh to me. If you really feel strongly that this block should be indefinite, take it to ArbCom. Nandesuka 11:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin is User:Lar, and the block currently is indefinite. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few people thought the original block was appropriate. I see no evidence that any of them have changed their minds. I might agree to less than indefinite should a real apology be made wherein KarlV admits that what he did was wrong and that his implying that everyone who edited that article was a neo-nazi was wrong, but until then, sorry, no. pschemp | talk 12:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. IF he should apologise in a way that admits fault, culpability and contrition, I'd have reason to believe that we won't be seeing further trouble from him, and would support a reduction. I see no sign of that though. It's also worthy of note that KarlV has placed block review requests on his page more than once, and had them declined more than once as well. However, you will have to look in the history for that, as SlimVirgin, standing on process, has removed all evidence of prior requests by silently reverting attempts to bring them back (the attempts had explanations of why the prior requests are relevant in this case, and she characterised that as reverting without discussion, while denying that her reversion is a reversion without discussion). Since she's trying to make a case that there is no consensus for an indef block, removing evidence that uninvolved admins have reviewed and declined seems to be giving the appearance of hiding things a bit. Some summary of prior requests seems relevant regardless of the wording of the template. and ought to be present on the page for the benefit of uninvolved admins. She has also reverted my attempts to refactor the discussion I had with her to keep it all in one place for convenience. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, trying to hide things? Lar, I have nothing to do with this block or content dispute. I'm completely uninvolved (and even if I were involved, the allegation that I'm trying to "hide" things by reverting an attempt to repost the entire discussion would be inappropriate). My only interest is that KarlV's behavior does not warrant an indefblock, and several other admins and editors agree. Therefore, it will be reduced. The remaining question is simply how long it should last. Please join in that discussion. And here is the previous discussion. All anyone had to do was link to it, not repost the entire thing, or try to alter the archive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Neo-nazi accusations should be treated as very serious, can end careers, and as such, indef blocked and libellous contributions oversighted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the time to review the edit histories since the explanations above were largely worthless. One thing I didn't find... any instance whatsoever of KarlV accusing anyone of being a Neo-nazi. The only thing even remotely related was that he recounted someone else claiming that there were 'right wing' users influencing English Wikipedia, but that he didn't believe it... which he said on another site... in German. Does someone have a diff for this supposed Neo-Nazi accusation? Because if not I'm gonna be a little annoyed. --CBD 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to read quite carefully. KarlV does not make direct accusations. He insinuates things about alternatively one, two or an indeterminate number of admins, whom he refuses to name. He also simultaneously denies having implied anything. Several people were drawn to chiming in with similar opinions in the archived ANI discussion. Also see translation below. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD, Tickle me has also insinuated this. I've repeatedly used the words "implying" and "insinuating" as that is what was done by both. There is a cultural aspect to this too that English speakers and non-Europeans will likely not understand. Kim has explained it well above. Also note that right-wing = neo-nazi in German. Over and over on this thread and the last thread and the talk page of the article I've been hammered with "Why did you revert to the concentration camp wording?" "Why did Samsara paste in the concentration camp wording", "Why did Burke's Peerage use that word"? with the implication that we did that to support a right wing agenda. I can't speak for Burke, but I was stopping an edit war, and Samsara was merging two articles, trying to help out. These explanations have been ignored and the questions asked multiple times. It is so disheartening that so little good faith was assumed on our part that these questions keep being asked. pschemp | talk 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, I've read your translation twice, and it seems to be a good and a fair one; I suspect your German is better than mine though. I've also read the page history. It seems that you were reverting to "concentration camp"(here, for example), and arguing for that wording on the talk page? Now, to me, the argument about whether that word appears in the reference given is somewhat moot. As you know, "concentration camp" is a loaded term in English. While it may have originally referred to camps to keep people together in detention, to most people now the main association is with the death and labour camps of the Third Reich.

We quite properly don't use the term in our article on Guantanamo Bay detainment camp or on Maze (HM Prison), for example, because it would be considered POV there, even though, by the original definition that would arguably be a very good description of these facilities, and even though you could easily find significant minority views who would like the articles to use the term. So, to describe a British facility for holding and interrogating former Nazis after the war had ended as a "concentration camp", could be seen as defending a POV that some Neo-Nazis would hold. I'm not questioning your good faith in reverting the edit for a moment, although as I argue above I think it was wrong, nor am I for a millisecond imputing the sort of motives to you that you seem to think Karl has.

Both of you, I've looked and haven't seen anywhere that Kurt actually said you were neo-Nazis. He was guilty of not assuming good faith if he assumed that was why you were reverting to a term he (correctly in my view) believed to be more accurate. If you can find where he said you were Neo-Nazis, please post a reference to that. Excuse me if you already have and I've missed it; there's a lot to read and although I read this business up in detail a few days ago, I've only really skimmed the new commentary. I assure you I would think differently of the matter if I thought he had said that.

If, on the other hand, it is a matter of what you thought he implied you meant kind of thing, I wouldn't carry on with the bad feelings you seem to have about this editor, but move on, forgive the guy, accept what I see as a reasonable apology for using the term "experiment" to describe his edits in en: (edits I might have made myself if I had seen the term "concentration camp" used to describe a post-war UK facility)... as I said before, what else can he really be expected to apologise for?

Please, can't we shake hands all round and get on with improving more articles? The Dachau article needed some TLC the last time I looked. Move on? --Guinnog 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guinnog. This seems overdone to me. Pschemp, when El C and others "asked multiple times" about reverts and 'concentration camp' I don't think they at all intended an "implication that we did that to support a right wing agenda". I thought they were just trying to understand what had gone on. If a block was placed by someone who was involved in an edit war with the blockee that's relevant to evaluating the block (yes, I know Lar 'took over' the block to address that issue). Et cetera. Since a good portion of the reasons for blocking here apparently took place on the German Wikipedia people didn't really know what was going on and were looking for info. Personally it seems clear to me that everyone involved is 'anti Nazi' and the accusations/implications to the contrary on both sides seem bizarre. --CBD 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's bizzare is that the block hasn't been in my name for days and I'm still getting grilled. If the reason for grilling was determining if I was involved, that reason has been long gone. pschemp | talk 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your casual use of "Et cetera" is not helping matters. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD, where in his apology does it show that he admits that his experimentation was wrong? Give me a decent apology and I'll drop it. Right now its an apology that says, "I'm sorry you guys are upset about my actions", and I'm sorry I used the English word experiment and that's it. pschemp | talk 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And with that... you have completely lost me. My "casual use of 'Et cetera'"?!? Irk? I'd apologize for "not helping matters", but I honestly cannot begin to imagine what you are talking about. It is bad that I said 'Et cetera' rather than listing each and every one of the questions El C and others asked and what their reasons for doing so might have been other than 'implying you were a nazi'? --CBD 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD, my patience for vagueness, refusal to name people and, yes, et ceteras has been entirely used up. Either say what you mean or keep your peace. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You won't find the term neo-nazi, its not used in this context. Karl's "apology" has admitted to no wrong doing. His actions caused subsequent editors to assume bad faith and grill me about my actions. If a real apology appears I will move on. Lar (who's name the block is in) also has said this. I think offering to move on with a proper apology is entirely reasonable. Why don't you write to KarlV and ask him to make a few concessions too? pschemp | talk 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. —xyzzy_n 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Curt, what are we to get from this link? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This. —xyzzy_n 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

yes I worded that badly. What I'm trying to say is that no one used that exact word, it was implied. Doesn't matter though, its a decent apology that is the issue here. My English isn't perfect either. ;) pschemp | talk 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, you should understand that I have no misgivings about the current wording. However, as virtual handshakes are concerned, I offered this to KarlV on 2 August in addition to having emailed him about a day earlier (iirc, I obviously don't have a copy of the email) to try and resolve the conflict off-wiki, which I would have preferred. However, as you can see in the translated document (or the original), he told me on 4 August that the analysis was being worked on, i.e. he was going to continue his witch-hunt on admins that most people now seem to agree are not politically biased. I fail to see where he's really improved beyond "I'll pretend to apologise if that gets me what I want". Lar has written some cogent commentary on this.

I also have no interest in editing Dachau. This was never my field and never will be. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, I didn't see where he called you "right-wing extremist" either. I don't think he did, though I stand to be corrected. If you think he may have thought you were a right-wing extremist, you may be right; I have no way of knowing, but I tried to show above why he conceivably might wrongly have thought so. However, what you think he thought isn't justification for an indefinite block in my view, or for any block at all unless he actually said it.

Samsara, I am happy to email him. What do you want me to say? If you feel because of something he has said that there has been a witch hunt, or if you feel he has breached WP:NPA, WP:AGF, or whatever, show me where and I will happily challenge him on it and ask him to apologise and guarantee not to repeat the behaviour, if I agree with you he has behaved improperly. If you offered him this earlier, I don't think you should have a problem with my repeating it on your behalf.

Failing that, as I say, I think we should all forgive each other for the undoubted stress that has been caused, celebrate the undoubted improvement of the article, and move on. Really. --Guinnog 22:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A decent apology and I'll move on. Simple. pschemp | talk 22:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you regard as decent, what would you say he has done that he needs to apologise for, beyond 3rr and calling what he was doing in editing the article an experiment, both of which he has apologised for? I'm not being Socratic here, I'm asking you to say exactly (with diffs) what he has done wrong, and I'll see if I can ask him to apologise. --Guinnog 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an experiment. There can be no doubt about this. I am very concerned by the fact that you do not seem to understand this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See that's the issue Gunniog. KarlV apologized for calling it an experiment, not for actually doing it! pschemp | talk 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow this thing really escalated way beyond what is necessary. I was minorly involved on the page and happened to agree with KarlIV's argument, that we should use whatever term that English sources explicitly used. It seems that was his only gripe. All the content matters have since been worked out and I see ChrisO did a fine job expanding. There's obviously some language barrier issues here and it would be best to AGF and not project so much onto people's intentions over words (i.e., "experiment", "right wing") that easily get lost in translation. I don't see anything warranting an indefinite block for KarlIV. He violated 3RR once, and I wouldn't even go so far as to say he violated WP:Point, but even if he did, it still doesn't merit an indefinite block. That's far too extreme a measure. Give the guy a break and move on. HGB 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. KarlV isn't a disruptive user. This was an isolated incident for which he has apologized twice (even if the apology is not worded exactly the way his opponents would like). Those in favor of shortening the block, from this and the previous discussion, are HGB, Nandesuka, Jayjg, InShanee, FeloniousMonk, ChrisO, tickle me, El C, Phr, Ken Arromdee, Guinnog, jossi, and SlimVirgin; and possibly also JoshuaZ, fuddlemark, and xyzzy. It's therefore clear it should be shortened; the question is only to what. Last time, one month was mentioned and seemed to be favored. KarlV has e-mailed me to say he's away until the end of August so it's a moot point until then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it exceedingly interesting how you arrive at a "consensus" (or whatever this is supposed to be) by counting up the voices in favour of your side of the argument. Number 1, consensus is not a vote; number 2, you've neglected to mention the large number of editors who remain in favour of the block. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, you keep asking for good faith to be shown toward you, but you show nothing but bad faith toward others. For there to be consensus that someone should be indefblocked, there should generally only be a very small number opposed, but in this case, most of those who have commented are opposed, which is why I posted the names. Please post who is in favor of the indef block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, you go; I'll do it for you. In favor of an indefblock: Samsara, pschemp, Lar, NoSeptember, Chairboy, AdamBishop, Celestianpower, Phil Boswell, Connel MacKenzie, and I like Burke's Peerage. That gives us 10 wanting an indefblock, and 13 against, plus possibly another three against who left ambiguous comments. Therefore, there is no consensus for an indefblock. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, I'm sorry you're concerned. Please believe that I'm only trying to avoid what seems like an unjust block for a user who seems to have helped improve the project, who acknowledges he made mistakes in his methods, has apologised and agreed not to repeat the behaviour that led to a block; my impression on the last discussion was that the block was given for breach of WP:POINT in calling what he was doing (which seemed to me like a good-faith addition to the encyclopedia) an "experiment". I don't see that, other than his breach of 3rr and the above, he has really done anything to apologise for. If you are able to clearly express where else he has broken policy or behaved badly, you should say so and give specific examples. Otherwise I am inclined to think you are just, perhaps understandably, annoyed with this user for what you think they thought of you. Do you know what I mean? Suspected breach of WP:AGF isn't enough for a permanent block. If it were, I'm sure I probably wouldn't be talking to you now. Please think about it. --Guinnog 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what you aren't getting. He violated WP:POINT. He was blocked for that, not for what he called it. His actions are what resulted in the block, not his words. He has not apologized for his actions, only his words. Why don't you understand that? pschemp | talk 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to get this in perspective. We're currently discussing elsewhere whether a user should be indefblocked for operating three sockpuppets, one of them an admin while the other two went either for bureaucrat or adminship, the latter trying four times. Plus voting more than once in polls etc. That's disruption, and yet people are still undecided whether an indefblock is appropriate. KarlV's behavior doesn't approach that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you haven't been reading then because I've said multiple times now that I would consider a shorter block if a real apology appears. No one is arguing for the indef to stay if KarlV shows some real contrition. Gunniog and HGB seem to have missed this point too. pschemp | talk 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's encouraging. Exactly what would you accept as a real apology? Beyond what he's already apologised for? As before, please accept that I'm not being rhetorical here. Please point to actual things he has done and I guarantee to ask him to apologise, if I agree he has breached policy. --Guinnog 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to be careful with the "if I agree he breached policy." Consensus was pretty clear on the other thread that he did violate point. I'd hate to see that kind of community discussion ignored. pschemp | talk 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

He needs to admit that his method for undertaking to ferret out right-wing bias was wrong. Instead of editing disruptively, he should have brought it up here if he thought it was an issue, not provoked an edit war. And he needs to admit that he violated POINT by disrupting rather than discussing. This whole thing could have been avoided had he discussed his concerns, rather than experimenting to prove his point. The only thing he has apologised for right now is using the English word experiment, a ploy of semantics. He said he was sorry we were upset, but not that he was sorry he used the wrong method. Plenty of people agree with the fact that he used the wrong method, go read the other thread if you don't believe me. pschemp | talk 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Lar above since you seem to have missed it, "IF he should apologise in a way that admits fault, culpability and contrition, I'd have reason to believe that we won't be seeing further trouble from him, and would support a reduction" Same thing. pschemp | talk 01:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the German talk

Since nothing else seems to give, I've now provided a translation of the parts of that pertain to the events here discussed. I'm afraid the translation is non-negotiable. If you find bits that haven't been translated (except the trailing speech by tickle me, which I haven't any time for right now as he's been disrupting me all day), let me know. Please note that this translation is officially "not ratified" by KarlV. German speakers may wish to convince themselves that the translation is accurate by viewing the translation and original side-by-side. I'm afraid the translation will not be updated with additional comments made at , so if they continue to discuss mostly in German, you'll have to all learn that language. Sorry! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional facts about KarlV

Just so it's all out on the table now, here a few more facts about KarlV:

• he has edit-warred on at least one previous occasion [52]
• he has not replied to an email message that I sent to him from the German Wikipedia several weeks ago in which I sought a private mediation of the conflict, nor commented on the failure of this avenue when I brought it up in discussion (see the translation)

Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

An edit war from January 2006? And he hasn't responded to an e-mail from you? How could this possibly be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How could your comment possibly be useful? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's useful so you can explain why you would bring this up; I certainly can't see the relevance, but perhaps you have some explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of arguing with people whose minds are made up, as your phrasing "how could this possibly" would suggest. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While im undecided about the legitimacy of the block (leaning towards it being appropriate) this is completely usless and should probably be stricken. An edit war from over 6 months ago and a lack of response to a private, off-wiki communication is completely unrelated to the inquiry and just serves to clutter. -M^ask 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was requested by CDB in the first paragraph of the #Making it simple section above. As I recall, there were other similar requests elsewhere above (if they haven't been archived or edited away,) yesterday. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In favor of and against indefblock

In case it gets lost in the above:

• Posted in favor of indefblock: Samsara, pschemp, Lar, NoSeptember, Chairboy, AdamBishop, Celestianpower, Phil Boswell, Connel MacKenzie, and I like Burke's Peerage.

  Slim you forgot JoanneB. Her support is on the karl's talk page. (since we suddenly seem to be "vote" counting.)pschemp | talk 03:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Posted against: HGB, Nandesuka, Jayjg, InShanee, FeloniousMonk, ChrisO, tickle me, El C, Phr, Ken Arromdee, Guinnog, jossi, and SlimVirgin; possibly also JoshuaZ and fuddlemark. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't several others post in favor of the indef block in the original discussion? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Name any more that you think did. But even if there are more, what Nandesuka says is correct: for a community ban to hold, the opposition needs to be minimal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Community bans — which is effectively what any non-arbcom sponsored indefinite block is — are generally accepted when there is little to no public opposition to them. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Nandesuka 02:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, could you please remove me from that list for now? I’d like to hear from KarlV before being against the current block. —xyzzy_n 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)\

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of this section? Again, since no one seems to remember, if karlV apologizes for his actions properly I said I'd support a shorter block, and so did Lar, the current blocking admin. That's the real debate here. So lovely its being ignored. In fact I can pretty much say that should a proper apology happen, I don't think anyone would support an indef block. Why not get a proper apology and then we can have 100% consensus and no admin would have to overturn another's block and we could all be happy. Wouldn't that be nice? (for once.) pschemp | talk 03:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of the section is that Samsara accused me of discussing only those who supported shortening the block; for that reason, I've listed both here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

pschemp is, as usual, spot on. If we get a proper apology with the features I outlined, I'm all over supporting a shorter block. But we're not getting that. Instead of taking us all through the wringer, why not get KarlV to do that? it would be a lot less time consuming, presumably, if he's reasonable and contrite. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Draft of an acceptable apology

Since this seems to be what people are calling for, here goes (pschemp, Lar, anyone else that would like to see an apology, feel free to edit this; people who don't need any apology, do not edit this!):

• Apologise for having conducted an experiment designed to identify extreme right wing editors and admins on the English Wikipedia, and for inciting "analysis" of the results on the German Wikipedia, as well as posting an invitation for editors on the English Wikipedia to join the "analysis" on the German Wikipedia
• Apologise for thus damaging the relationship of mutual trust between the German and English Wikipedias

I say we wait 24 hours to give everyone a chance to include their gripes here before taking this forward. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Integrity of the ANI archives

For various reasons I have the last few ANI archives on my watchlist. Several times people have inserted material into the discussions, which I have reverted. It seems to me the archives should be a record of what was said, not what one wishes was said. Samsara has added material to Archive126 relating to the KarlIV saga; I reverted. He told me that he considers it slander and will continue to alter the archive. I think he has a fair complaint in that things were said about him that he didn't have a chance to respond to; I also think archives should be archives. However, I'm not looking for a fight. I bring this to the attention of the group for consideration. Thanks. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure that our current archiving rate is appropriate for issues like this. The thread was huge, no one wants to read though it again, but the issue is current. It is unfortunate that it got archived, but changing it and then putting a note up about the changes doesn't bother me in the least. The changes are transparent that way. Reverting someones comments is never a good idea. pschemp | talk 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, if a thread is accidentally archived instead of modifying the archive either the thread should be moved over from the archive or a new thread should be created with a link at the top to the proper section of the archive where the original thread was, the latter is simpler but the former would assure that the archived posts are read by people who come late into the conversation. There should be no need for anyone to directly edit an archived post other than to possibly move it out or fix something that causes a display issue or something like that. If people are editing archives I'd suggest leaving a note on their talk page and reverting the change (note I said revert not rollback since rollback would be improper for this situation) If it can be reasonably assumed that they saw the note and are still editing the archives then block them since they'd then be ruining the integrity of even having an archive. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Little note, Thygard is a banned sock of Jtkiefer. pschemp | talk 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of leaving the archives unmodified. If an old discussion needs to be revived, paste it from the archive into ANI or into a new ANI sub-page. I think a sub-page is appropriate in this case given the length of the dicussion. Phr (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

it was pasted, and SlimVirgin removed it. pschemp | talk 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was the full discussion, good for Slim, two thumbs up. If it was a archive link, then it should be reverted. I can't find the diff. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[53]. Was posted above. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me why archives aren't protected? --mboverload@ 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a recent problem. When i started noticing recent archives being changed I looked at older ones to see if there was a common response, and editing the archives just wasn't common in the past (or I missed it). Thatcher131 (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that multiple people must edit the page to keep ANI from turning into one of those giant cell thingies from the stupid Jap/Chinese movies. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand that last comment. Anyways, I'm surprised the archives aren't protected. I'll start watchlisting some of them just to make sure this stuff doens't happen. But an archive should be just that--a record of an old discussion. It shouldn't be modified. If a discussion needs to be continued, a new thread should be posted with a link to the archives. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you a) protect archives, and b) don't allow corrections to be made, how are you going to defend against archives containing incorrect information that people will dig up again to put everyone back at square one? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Put comments on the archive talk page. That's what we do all the time with closed afd's. Phr (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the archives here makes no sense. That's not what protection policy is for. We don't protect archived RFAs (either type) and plenty of other important archives, nor should we unless vandalism is apparent. Community consensus is that protection has never applied to archives (except for extremem vandalism and then not forever). Not to mention the fact that it would most likely be admins editing WP:ANI, thus protection would do nothing to stop them. If you'll take a look at Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages you can see that not one archive is on there. It has been made very clear that page protection policy applies in a narrow set of circumstances. This is not one of them. Teh protection is evil. Use the page history. pschemp | talk 12:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Curpsbot replacement?

Looks like our favorite pagemove vandal is back with a vengeance; any chance of getting something useful running to stop these guys earlier? Kirill Lokshin 01:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a pagemove velocity limit in the MediaWiki code. I'll ask the devs if they have any objection to this. Phr (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, bots don't monitor pagemoves? This section on the WP:WOW talk page says that a bot monitors pagemoves, limiting the destruction that Willy could wreck. Hbdragon88 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's CURPSBOT. Which is missing in action.

POV revert and blanking war at Bob Brinker

Bob Brinker could use an admin/mediator again, to break up a months long edit war, complete with multiple daily removal, reinsertion, removal, etc., of three links that are not 100% positive about Brinker. Links have also been vandalized to make them not work. I attempted to mediate, without success. Some discussion has begun, but even other's comments on the talk page are edited or removed completely. Nearly all of the reverting and removal is done by anon IP accounts, without comment. I suggest semi-protection, to stop the anon-without-comment editing, and suggest mediation that is beyond my ability. ॐ Priyanath 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It continues today, with User:71.134.43.125 yet again (he's already received 4 warnings and a block for his careful editing on Bob Brinker), blanking an entire section of comments on the talk page, and blanking the links, without comment, that have been in dispute. ॐ Priyanath 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppets at Talk:Susan Polgar

I have a strong suspicion that the anon IP posting at Talk:Susan Polgar is the banned User:Amorrow. FloNight would know more about this. Phr (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow at work. i semi-protected the article. Looks like he has been busy. I think he has started several articles and one Mfd. --FloNight ^talk 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User page and talk page messages from retired/departed users

Occasionally I will see a comment that's of interest, click on the username to look at his/her user page or talk page, and find a message indicating that the user has left Wikipedia permanently. This always suddens me, but is of greater concern when the page not only indicates that the particular user has departed, but urges others to leave the project as well.

Are "retired"/"departed" users permitted to leave messages on their userpages or talk pages expressing their disgruntlement with the project and encouraging other users to leave as well? Should the message be left up for a short time so friends will know what happened to the person, and then blanked? Is there, or should there be, any policy on this issue? Newyorkbrad 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly think it matters; good byes have far less weight than the people leaving them realize. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No reason to treat the user page of someone who has "left" the project any differently than a normal user page. Unless there is something particularly toxic on it, simply leave it alone. - brenneman ^{L} 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Let the goodbye note stay. It could maybe be argued that having statements encouraging others to leave the project is counterproductive, but, as Cyde says, very few read those notes, and second, deleting stuff like that has the potential of stirring up more hate and bickering from the departed wikipedian: 1) Someone leaves and writes a note about why, maybe that the admins here suck. 2) An admin deletes said note. 3) The displeased wikipedian notices it and re-creates the page along with a flaming note on WP:AN and god knows where else about how this proves his point and how wikipedia is ran by tyrants, etc 4)Flaming and silly debates ensues. It's not worth it. Shanes 02:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone leaves with a reason, there is nothing against others to know that reason. If we would know why good editors are leaving wikipedia, we actually would be able to improve it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Johnson (basketball)

Edward "Fast Eddie" Johnson Jr., a former NBA basketball player was arrested for pedophilia. Eddie Johnson (basketball) was NOT arrested for pedophilia. Unfortunately, the accusation has made it's way to the wrong page. The current page is correct but there are history's that have the false accusation. Per Living Bio's I have seen entries with libelous claims get permanently deleted. I am not sure if this is policy or not but it may deserve a look. I am not sure if regular admins can do this or if it's a bureaucrats job. Someone should go through the hisotry and permanently delete the entries with the false accusation content. --Tbeatty 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a libelous claim -- it's an obvious and understandable mistake. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆
  • Granted, it doesn't meet the definition of libel because it lacks malicious intent but it is due to a non-thorough check of sources. Due diligence was not done before the accusation was made. There is no need to retain that false history on a living persons bio. It is an honest mistake of a wikipedia editor but a mistake nonetheless that does not need to follow the subject into eternity. No one should be able to get a page that accuses him of child molestation. This has happened before and the result was delete. Only living person bio's get this specific treatment. --Tbeatty 05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Look for a user with Oversight permission (there are 25 of them). Thatcher131 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We should not alter history like that unless we have to. The current version of the article clearly explains the error, and I don't think anyone is going to get confused by some version buried in the article history saying the wrong thing, especially since the edit summaries show what happened. If the NYT makes an error like that, they print a correction. They don't go and scrub their archives except maybe in extreme circumstances, if at all. According to the article, the same error occurred in multiple media reports; we're actually in better shape than them, since our old article revs normally aren't indexed by search engines and databases, while news stories usually are. Phr (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon user at 24.14.151.87

The user at this IP address (Comcast in the Chicago area) has admitted to being a student at Neuqua Valley High School and has vandalized that page several times. He or she has had those edits reverted by me, among others (as the page is on my watchlist), but this user has, for whatever, reason, decided to single me out and vandalized my user page and user talk page on multiple occasions. This led, yesterday, to protection of that IP address's user talk page and a 24 hour block on that IP address. I have attempted to be civil, and have been rebuffed at every turn. As soon as the ban expired, the user's single edit since was to go BACK to my user talk page and make snide remarks, which I have since removed. What I am asking for, if possible, is monitoring of further edits from this IP address, as I can't keep a constant eye on my own user page and the other pages on my watch list (not if I'm going to keep my day job anyway :). Please let me know if this is possible, as I do feel it's warranted - the behavior pattern has been established and I feel it may continue in the near future. --JohnDBuell 04:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) User_talk:JohnDBuell

Addendum: This user attempted to restore his or her comments just a few minutes ago. Such acts have been the user's ONLY edits the last two days. If this continues I will be considering it as harassment and I will be asking for appropriate steps to be taken. --JohnDBuell 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum 2: This anon user has made three and only three edits since the 24 hour block was listed. Each edit was simply to harass me on my talk page. I do now officially consider this harassment, and wikistalking, and I INSIST that action be taken. --JohnDBuell 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot spamming an article need outside links blacklisted

His Dark Materials is being spamed by a bot. We need these external advertising links blacklisted to help prevent this. Here are some examples that I can find [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] SirGrant 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just want to note that they are using either zombie PC's or IP spoofing or something like that because each vandalism edit comes from a different IP so blocking in this case isn't working we really need the URL's blacklisted so they can't be advertised SirGrant 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good news is I have blocked 14 open proxy ips by going through the history there. Bad news is I only got back to 19:32 on 29 Jul 2006 [70] before I gave up. I provided the diff where I stopped (that anon was the last block I did), so if someone else wants to wander back through the history and check the ips for proxy thats cool. Otherwise when I'm done with some work work I'll check back later. If you do go further back, leave a note here. Syrthiss 12:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reported at m:Talk:Spam blacklist Just zis Guy you know? 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Added to spam blacklist. Naconkantari 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just updating any new spam that gets put on there:[71] SirGrant 07:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

zomg everyone look at da GoldToeMarionette case!!111oen

Someone's trying to add that garbage again. I gotta admit, I give (her/him) credit for persistance, but it's been, what, a month now since the block and (s)he is still going on about it being a bad CheckUser? Sockpuppet bashing time, anyone? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless some admins want to reconsider the exhaustion of community patience ban I'm pretty sure he's under, User:PoolGuy and his socks should be reverted as edits by a banned user. He creates lots of sockpuppets, and usually spams a similar manifesto. Kevin_b_er 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was foolish enough to respond to him and he pretty much confirmed himself to be PoolGuy, see User_talk:Ashibaka#Request_your_attention_to_the_GoldToeMarionette_case Ashibaka tock 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Recall redux

(No, not Redux. A fine 'crat.) FYI, there's a lively discussion going on about the recall process at Category talk:Administrators open to recall - may you be aware of it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Seicer

He's called me a vandal and accused me of copyright violations. --SPUI (T - C) 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And again. --SPUI (T - C) 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you stopped vandalising and apologised for violating his copyright he might stop making the accusations. Just a thought... (OK, it's tendentious editing more than simple vandalism but not much to choose between them) Just zis Guy you know? 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a dick - I'm not vandalizing and I haven't violated his copyright. --SPUI (T - C) 08:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Some light Colbertorism

Eli Pariser decided to join in the fun on the Colbert Report and mumbled that Stephen had learned that a majority of Americans thought Hitler was a great guy on Wikipedia. Fortunately he mumbled it and Colbert was speaking over him at the time (and it's just... not... funny anymore), so the damage is pretty light, but the more eyes, as usual, the better. JDoorjam Talk 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I, mboverload, certify JDoor's testimony before AN/I to be truthful in whole. --mboverload@ 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We also have a user trying to change the redirect on wikiality to an article again. Perhaps protection is still in order if it continues. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 09:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that it should not even be a redirect, let alone an article. Then I noticed that it was a redirect to another article on a made up word by Colbert, which was even more disheartening. If they have to exist, they should both be redirects to Colbert or his show. They are dictionary definitions, neologisms and extreme fancruft. -- Kjkolb 10:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you should read the articles. --mboverload@ 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Only tangentially related, but I caught some Colberorism on Stephen I of Hungary last night. Six hours old, so there didn't see much sense in pursuing a block/warning the IP responsible. -- nae'blis 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:ParalelUni

How's this for a comment: [72]. Hey, an admin adds {{unaccredited}} to an unaccredited college, that makes it a great thing that the admin's sister recently died and let's hope the admin dies soon as well! Just zis Guy you know? 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I pinged JoshuaZ who threw the first block and he added 48 hours for you. Definitely someone to watch. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nasty piece of work, that one. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit too AGF and policy oriented to give the user a longer block, but I'd like to make it clear that if another admin wishes to extend my block, I will not object. JoshuaZ 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After about 6 users telling me that this should be an indefinite block I have done so (it didn't help matters that there were about 5 other edits as virulent as the above one). Is there a community consensus for this ban? JoshuaZ 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Because of his behavior and because he is only here to shill for his diploma mill. Thatcher131 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk after indefinite block (Ste4k)

I'm not sure if this is a deal or not: User:Ste4k was indefinitely blocked for, among other things, trying to get her talk history deleted [73]. Since the block, she has twice blanked her talk page, leaving an "archive" link which redirects to her RfC [74] [75]. I've reverted once explaining that's not a proper way to archive a talk page, but I don't want to get into an edit war. Should it be reverted again? Protected? thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking still leaves it in the page history, where any editor can see it or restore it if needed. I would be in favor of letting her do this, because there is nothing to be gained by antagonizing an already-banned user, and if she is no longer editing articles, she will no longer need it to communicate with other editors. If she comes back with sockpuppets, and we need to have the talk page restored for comparison or enforcement purposes, we can do it at that time. Just my opinion of course. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my thought, too. Just wanted 2nd opinion(s). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I really dislike the 'make it policy that users cannot blank warning messages / their talk page' suggestion. Whatever problems might theoretically arise out of users 'hiding' information seem vastly outweighed by the problems caused by harrassing them over this issue. It just isn't important enough to justify implementation of a Wikipedia 'scarlet letter' policy. --CBD 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with archiving messages after a decent interval. We have an ongoing problem with users removing warnings very soon after they are issued and not archiving them, but we should not be encouraging a situation where an admin asked to follow up a report of a disruptive or vandalising user has to check the talk history to find out if a warning was issued or not. A week later? Sure, archive it, the storm is probably past. But removing warnings and criticism, and leaving only the shiny, nice comments, presents a false picture. Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh. She's now made a change that I think might be problematic: [76]. Seems to be holding a grudge... Again, perhaps best just left alone, but thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll deal with it. I have had a reasonably civil relationship with Ste4k. I still think that with a bit of patience we could turn that one around. Just zis Guy you know? 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If an editor is indefinitely blocked, we are generally still willing to afford them the m:Right to vanish—they can blank their talk and user pages, and not come back. What we won't do is let them leave behind a list of attacks on other editors (admins or not). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruptions by User:Kmaguir1 (and meatpuppet User:Truthseekers)

Please see Judith Butler and its talk page. User:Kmaguir1 is disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, and ignores the process of WP:CONSENSUS. Examination of his edit history, mine, and those of other users will show that I've tried to work with him, and have helped improve his edits, but then he unilaterally persists on inserting the same disputed paragraphs, over and over, ignoring Talk page discussions. It's clear he's on a crusade, editing only destructively rather than adding constructively. Please advise on how we should proceed. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Kwame Nkrumah

Hi, I have been referred to this page by another Wikipedia admin, User:Stifle. I recently complained on the 3RR board about a possible violation [77] which User:Stifle ruled to be a no apparent violation, since he could not concretely link the two user accounts. However, he did point out something strange about the account here as well as notifying Kwame Nkurah to leave his posts along on his talk page, [78]. Immediately after, User:Kwame Nkrumah proceeded to harass me [79] (see edits at 19:27, 19:38 and 19:39 August 10), the last of which he ended up deleting MY OWN response on MY OWN talk page. I reverted these posts [80] and responded as follows on WP User:Stifle's page as follows: [81]. My post was immediately stalked (see [82]) and Stifle replied that he is going to bed (see posts between 19:59-20:11, [83]) which I hoped were going to be enough to get this guy off my back (I made no responses to the Admin's replies, I did not retribute or do anything against Kwame Nkrumah, nor was I planning on posting on this page, since all I want is for this person to leave me alone). Kwame Nkrumah seemed to have settled down himself, making no responses since Stifle left posts on mine and his Talk pages. However, upon waking up this morning, I find another harassing post by Kwame Nkrumah on my Talk page, [84]. I'm sorry that I had to resort to posting here, but this is the most vengeful Wikipedian I have ever seen--I have never had to deal with ANYONE like this and I demand that his stalking/harassment of me stop. This guy obviously does not understand basic words, so I'm hoping you can offer some insight either through talk or action that will make him stop.. Thanks, --Palffy 15:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that 3 minutes prior to his post on my Talk page this morning (07:10 August 11), this user proceeded to reverse the previously contested article using his suspected User: Spunti username, [85], at 07:07 August 11. Can someone else also check Ips on these two users?..I still have trouble believing that this is not the same person. --Palffy 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My POV:

1. I did three reverts, he put a 3RR warning on my talk page, I removed it, Stifle told me that removing warnings is not allowed, Stifle put back the 3RR warning
2. Palffy did three reverts, I put a 3RR warning on his talk page, he removed it, I added it back with a copy of Stifle message to explain that removing warnings is not allowed, he removed it, I added it back
3. Palffy denounced a 3RR break by me that was not, accused me of sockpuppetry, and now of "stalking" (or something like that)

--Kwame Nkrumah 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS BLATANT STALKING!!! He has bookmarked my Contributions page and is checking it every 5 minutes!! This is really out of control..Oh, and instead of minding his own business, the same thing that I described happens, [86]. --Palffy 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1. It is customary (and sign of civility) to inform a user you have just denounced him on this page;
2. You changed a page I have in my watchlist, that's why I noticed your edit.
3. It is not possible to watchlist a contribution page.
4. You are keeping on removing warning tags from your talk page.

--Kwame Nkrumah 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

More stalking, [87] by user. --Palffy 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have requested that the two users simply leave each other alone, as this confrontation is clearly not getting anywhere. Cowman109^Talk 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

wikistalking and home email

User:Travisthurston is wikistalking me and has sent an abusive email to my home. This user is a student of altmed and objects to my placement of the pseudoscience category despite these issues being referenced on the pseudoscience page. If anyone can make him stop, I'd be grateful. Mccready 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break Mccready! I sent you a polite email as a courtesy, and I didn't send it to your home. It was sent through the Wiki contact section. The Wiki Admin should review all of your edits and determine who is really the disruptor here. If Wikistalking is defined by me changing your biased, uninformed edits, then I'm guilty. But you have no right to change the definitions of medical treatments. You are not a doctor, you don't receive the treatments and you clearly are not an expert in any of these fields...Places that I think Mccready has vandalized; Chiropractic, Naturopathic medicine, Alternative medicine, Vertebral subluxation, Osteopathy, Acupressure, Acupuncture. The list goes on and on. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mccready Many people have asked that he discusses these edits in the talk page, he has refused. Please also note the many disputes he has caused with users.

3RR warning tag removal

User:Palffy removed several times a {{3RR}} tag from his talkpage:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]
5. [92]

He also treated me several times of banning and 3RR breaking denounces (when actually I did none).--Kwame Nkrumah 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good rule of thumb to not edit war, ever, over what another user does on his/her talkpage. You run a big risk of being seen as petty or frivolous when you do that, and the 3RR might be enforced against you instead. The removal of warnings on one's own page is "discouraged", not outlawed, and the 3RR is usually not enforced against such edits. Anyway, he removes a warning, that means he's seen it. There's no need to keep shoving it in his face. Please leave his page alone. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

Block request for user Alniko 203.199.213.66 and 203.199.213.67

Please block the user Alniko from editing Thiruvananthapuram. Many users have warned him many times in his talk page, but still not willing to listen. The same person runs hate blogs against the city

-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Condoleeza Ricecrispies

I have indefblocked User:Condoleeza Ricecrispies. Apart from the name, this account seems to have been created only to attack User:Aknorals and revert edits of this user (Liberatore, 2006). 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good block. Jkelly 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer

Some rather ugly things coming to light at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 3: Jtkiefer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is also apparently Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has had various interesting interactions between his accounts, including responding to his 3RR report, telling himself that he won't block himself for 3RR, supporting himself for a bot flag (but opposing his own RFA), double-voting on RFAs, and other such things. What do we do now? I would suggest an indefinite block of at least one of the accounts—perhaps with a shorter block on the other—and possibly a checkuser to see if he has any other sockpuppets waiting in the wings. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Pegasus1138 as an admitted sockpuppet engaged in devious activity. I would support a long block -- even an indefinite one -- on Jtkiefer, but will not impose it myself, given his history of hostility to me. Xoloz 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Support, way beyond anything acceptable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Some other strange goings-on here that may relate to this case. Kirill Lokshin 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for top-posting, but use RFAR. This is a picture perfect RFAR situation and the living example of a thing not to be done by head nods on AN/I. Geogre 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So is User:Thygard another sockpuppet? A checkuser seems strongly in order. JoshuaZ 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes you suspect that? Editor88 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind... I've got it figured out. 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in the strange position of having some good memories of Jtkiefer (and incidentally, bad ones of Pegasus). At this time, and based on this evidence, I would not yet be willing support an indefinite block. While there is evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, and the puppets should be blocked, so far I don't see enough evidence of the kind of persistent disruption that normally motivates an indefinite block. Dragons flight 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Thygard for the same reason as Pegasus1138. Xoloz 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Due to the gravity of the persistent and repeated abuses of trust reported in the course of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jtkiefer_3, I propose that we ban him from Wikipedia [93]. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. His actions convince me that he should never be an admin, and any future RfAs should be speedily closed. He should also be limmited to one account. But aside from that, I think probation rather than a ban is in order. There is no evidence (that I know of) that he's been a particularly disruptive editor. Arbcom might be better than an outright ban. --Doc 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Doc, I would suggest an RfArb over anything else. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:21, 11 August '06}

Hi, everyone. I must say that I disagree with a community ban. I know I'm not an admin, but I have just finished looking over the situation out of my own curiosity, and I don't believe that he's actually harmful. I agree that his potential future RfAs should be speedily closed and he should be limited to one account, but I don't think an indefinite ban is necessary - I'd say ArbCom. Sorry if I'm out of place... Srose (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are certainly not out of place. (Particularly since you are agreeing with me - which shows your inate wisdom ;).) --Doc 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc is, I think, quite right, and his suggestions seem roughly orthogonal with those of Cyde infra. Jtk should be limited to one account, of course, with the provision that his creating a sockpuppet for the purpose of disrupting projectspace will be strongly disfavored; his mainspace participation seems to be altogether fine, and I don't think there's any risk of disruption relative to work on articles. I'm not certain that a year-long ban from RfA is in order—his only sockpuppeteering at RfA seems to have been relative to his own RfAs, and I can't imagine that he'll be requesting adminship anytime soon—since he may have particular prescience apropos of the judgment of prospective admins, but I don't think such a ban would be particularly wrong. Joe 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So how about this: Jtkiefer is put on a standard one-year probation with an added provision of being banned from RFA and its subpages (for one year). He is also limited to only one account. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur, for reasons enumerated above. Joe 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He should also be banned from WP:FPC for sockpuppet voting there as well. -Ravedave 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should close the admin window on him permanently - changes can happen outside of one's imagination. I do, however, prefer that he be required go through Editor review before his next admin application. Editor88 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I say ArbCom and RFC (should have been RFCU). I definitely feel there should be consequences over this, but a community ban seems a bit much. So ArbCom to get official status of some consequences/limits, and RFC to find any other current problem socks. - TexasAndroid 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC? Maybe a straight checkuser would be more effective in actually finding out what his other socks are? Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Checkuser is exactly what I meant. I just typed the wrong acronym. Sorry for any confusion. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say. RFC in this case would just become a venue to bash him. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of ugly in that RFA, but if he can agree to having only one account, there's a possibility he can still be a useful editor (though not an admin or anything with additional trust, apparently). Very sad to see this occur...I think Cyde has an acceptable compromise here. Are you actually intending to forbid him from voting on RFAs, though? -- nae'blis 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Given his use of sockpuppets to get muliple votes on at least three previous RFAs (that we know of), there need to be some consequences and provisions to ensure the integrity of the process. --Cyde Weys 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I was just making sure I understood your proposal. I'm not entirely certain how CheckUser works (not having the bit), is it only done on comparison of users, or does it reveal all users at a particular IP? I ask because it would make a difference in my confidence of all socks being caught/gone... -- nae'blis 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with finding his various sockpuppets, it would help over at WP:FPC -Ravedave 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indef ban may be a bit of an overkill, but I would support a RfAr hearing on all these. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• ArbCom is probably a cleaner way of going about this than a straight ban; but the various sockpuppets should be blocked outright. There's no need to risk having some of them slip under the radar at this point. Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just bringing it to everyone's attention: [94]. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:36, 11 August '06}

• I think indef block is too harsh, but placing Jtkiefer on probation for a year would be suitable. The socks should be indef blocked of course. Doubt an ArbComm case would be productive, there's really not much to arbitrate. -- Миборовский 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that Jtkiefer could be a good article editor again but should not be given any positions of trust, or allowed to comment or vote on them, until maturity has been demonstrated. I'd rather see him restricted to his current account with some curbs in place (no standing or running for admin, arb, or 'crat, and no commenting on other candidacies, not commenting/voting on anything else either) instead of his setting up another identity which then has to be managed/monitored somehow (and without fishing around it might be hard to do that anyway...) ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• One oppose vote by a new editor was odd to me in Jtkiefer's RfA. Namely by Republitarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user registered 2 days ago and started editing with edit summaries etc. Just strikes odd, with that previous self-oppose incident also. feydey 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not one of mine, sorry to burst the bubble of anyone who expects to find more socks, Pegasus and Thygard were my only two. Jtkiefer 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother

Don't bother, I am perfectly capable of knowing where and when I am not wanted and I am obviously not wanted here, please also indef. block Jtkiefer if it'll make you feel better but I'll save you all the trouble and go through a self imposed wiki-ban, for the record all I ever wanted to do was help the project, everything I did was an attempt to help though I honestly don't expect you all to believe that, well so long and thanks for all the fish. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, you are wanted so long as you make good contributions, and not the types of shenanigans that have upset so many. - Taxman ^Talk 17:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, while recent revelations have been distressing, the person most hurt by Jtkiefer's behaviour is almost certainly Jtkierer, himself. And the fact of opposing his sockpuppet's RfA suggests that this is not a straightforward case of duplicity for the motive of gain, but that the user may have been going through problems that we know nothing about. AnnH ♫ 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) It's not that you are not wanted, just that certain behavior is not wanted. All discussion here seems to be related to project-space problems; can you handle being "just" an article editor for a while, to re-establish trust? -- nae'blis 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Jt, I don't believe you would dispute that your actions have been less than appropriate. People are responding to them differently, and at this point the community has not come to any kind of decision -- and I don't suppose that it would be reasonable for you to expect that all of this be forgotten at the drop of a hat: if you want this to be let go eventually, the first step is to own it, that is, accept responsibility for the mistakes made.
I don't have a crystal ball, of course, but if I had to guess, I'd say you are not likely to be banned, but you are equally unlikely to become an administrator, or to hold any kind of special position in this community. If you can settle for being an editor (and doing it from a single account), who knows, in the future (granted, it would take a lot more time than "usual"), you might even arrive at a point where the community will we willing to trust you with Admin tools again. But if you up and leave now, nothing gets resolved, and the last memory of your participation in the project would be this debacle. Would you say that's fair? Be patient; accept responsibility. And don't get angry because people are having a hard time digesting what has happened, since that's not fair either. Redux 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

<de-indent> I thought I did, anyway yes I do take responsibility for what I was doing was wholly innapropriate and wrong and I apologize for violating everyone's trust, in my defense of Pegasus1138 though that sock was actually known and permitted by both Jimmy Wales and the arbitration committee in respone to the RFA/RFB incident that happened between the two accounts. Jtkiefer 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Jt is correct to some extent. He/She certainly IS unwanted by some of us. The unbelievable and offensive arrogance he/she showed at WP:FPC speaks volumes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention to arrogance of self-nominating a sock puppet for RfA four times. -Will Beback 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article editors are welcome always, but this user should never be an admin. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The regularity with which this user has attempted to gain "authority" over others here (and the underhanded tactics utilized) indicates (IMO) that he/she should be banned permanently from the Wikipedia. There is no place in our community for someone with the mindset that this user displays. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution

As I've said I am going on a self imposed Wikiban from this account and the other 2 have already been blocked and I fully agree to a community enforced one account probation, however due to the strong feelings in this case I am loathe to do it on this account and once this discussion has died down I will be scrambling my passwords on this and the other two accounts to long letter/number combinations to prevent abuse by myself or others. Considering that if my one account would not have a fair shot of being a good editor I would not publicly reveal what the nick is (when I have created it) however if a few trusted Wikipedian's would come forth and swear secrecy I think that having them as oversight would be a good idea, that way the needs of the community knowing what I'm doing and the needs of me being able to make a fresh start under one account would be met. Jtkiefer 17:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to this, on the one additional proviso that, if you ever want to seek RFA on the new account, you must publically reveal the link in the process. This may result in it being impossible for you to ever get adminship back, but I'm afraid that that would have to be part of the consequences for you actions. For you to ever seek adminship again, it must be done in the public light. I have no problem with you returning to edit quietly, but I have a big problem with the possibility of you using that secrecy to try to get adminship once again. As for who could be trusted to know your new account, User:Kelly Martin, for one, appears to have been trusted by you for quite a while, and could possibly be one of the people, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that Pegasus dissappeared with a very similar claim, I still think an RFCU would be in order. JoshuaZ 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Already filed. - TexasAndroid 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken this to Requests for arbitration [95]. --Tony Sidaway 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And the request for checkuser was shot down as a fishing expedition, I have already created my single use account btw, and as per the community imposed terms (and I don't think anyone will disagree if I say that this is the probation version of a community ban decision} of the single account probation I have created my secondary account, and as of now am limiting this account to this AN/I thread, my user, talk, and subpages, and the pending RFAr against me. Jtkiefer 18:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would not call it "Shot Down". Mackensen said there were no "extant accounts" other than the 3 we already know of. (And he deliberately did not reveal the new account, if it had been created before the check) I read this as check performed, nothing found beyond the known ones, and possibly the new one. As such I consider the RFCU issue to be closed. - TexasAndroid 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a very accurate analysis of it actually, so hopefully that can be put to rest. Jtkiefer 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just a status update, I have scrambled the passwords for both Pegasus and Thygard so I no longer have access to either account, nor is there an email address set for either account. Jtkiefer 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Both accounts are blocked indefinitely, so that's a moot point actually. - Mailer Diablo 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but I think it's an attempt at showing good faith on my part in me accepting using only one account if nothing else. Jtkiefer 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be quite irresponsible for us to Assume Good Faith on your part after your behavior. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I support arbitration to examine the entire history and all areas of potential abuse by the editor. For the record, I was seconds from blocking him for his utterly unacceptable attack of JDG ^[96], only to find out this was his (not his 1st) "I'm leaving" note. El_C 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:FPC

For the record, Jtkiefer has been involved in some potential irregularities on the WP:FPC. See here for details. His/Her consistent attempts to act as if he/she has "authority" over others or some special status seem in the same vein as his/her attempts to achieve adminship. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage deletion

I have requested several times that User:Thygard be deleted using {{db-owner}} perfectly in line with policy it has been confirmed that I am the owner and it is not a talk page. The sock notice which should be preserved is also present on the the talk page so that's not an issue eithyer. My requests while inline with policy have been deemed "vandalism" and my userpage ad been protected against even me editing it. Could an admin please fulfill my request? thanks. Jtkiefer 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) CanadianCaesar has brought up the good point that there may be an administrative need to keep the page, I disagree since my userpage is just links and notes created as a listing of my interests and some of my comings and goings and unlike my talk page has no real administrative substance but more comment is probably needed in that regard. Jtkiefer 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is useful in that it serves as a link to the contributions of that "user". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Per policy and common practice, the userpage may be blanked, deleted and protected; the talk page may be blanked as a courtesy but will not be deleted, to retain the history of comments, warnings, etc. Even at a blanked/deleted user page, the contribs link will still work. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you learn something new every day. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of AfD?

I see that Allegations of Israeli apartheid has been nominated for deletion yet again (for the third time, I believe). Not surprisingly, it's producing a perfect storm of POV warriors on both sides, blatantly voting for their own partisan POVs on the article, totally ignoring the notability criteria in favour of their own opinions on the subject matter.

I'm concerned by the rationale for the deletion nomination, which User:Haham hanuka states as: "Stinks of POV, useless, non encyclopedic, propagadna..." This looks like a textbook example of an abuse of the deletion process as defined by Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Abuse of deletion process: "XfD(deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept."

I note that Haham hanuka has just recently been blocked for a week for another abuse of process on AfD and has a long history of blocks for 3RR violations and egregrious revert warring (see [97]). This seems to be another such abuse of process from a problem user; I suggest that the AfD be speedy kept per WP:DEL, as the nomination plainly violates policy. (I'm not doing it myself because I've edited the article in the past - I don't want to be accused of a conflict of interest.) -- ChrisO 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, this is currently a RfAr case. You may wish to refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid for more info. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The RfAr relates to user conduct concerning this article, not about whether the article itself should be kept or deleted. The existence of the RfAr has no bearing on this particular RfD. -- ChrisO 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of AfD -> Abusive Conduct. RfAr has been previously used to ban editors from XfD process altogether to prevent further abuse. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Haham_hanuka isn't a party to the RfAr and as far as I know hasn't been involved in one - someone correct me if I'm wrong? -- ChrisO 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm...Don't think so, but I recall there are cases where new users are tied to and sanctioned halfway through the proceedings. (see : Userboxes case). I was suggesting that perhaps you may have a better response if you were to raise this concern in the Evidence section or talk page of the RfAr, given that this is a view over the conduct of users involved in the article in question? - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying now. However, I'm reluctant to add anything more to what is already a shambling horror of an arbitration case (just ask Fred Bauder!). It's very unlikely to reach a conclusion any time soon, assuming that the ArbCom doesn't just ditch the whole thing as unmanageable - frankly, if I was in their shoes I'd do that. The AfD in question will have closed one way or another long before the RfAr. That's why I've brought it up here rather than there. -- ChrisO 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Personally I'm not that inclined to hand out punitive blocks, so perhaps you may just want to leave some form of warning about possible sanctions in continued AfD abuse on his talkpage. If you're thinking of the extreme case of renominating over and over, there's one well-known precedent. Eventually they just had enough and go speedy keep. :o) - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the AfD needs to be thrown out. There is clear evidence of people soliciting votes. Whether an article is to be in Wikipedia or not is not determined by a organized campaign to delete (or keep) it. Fred Bauder 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope I am permitted to add something here even though I am not an admin. I think a few facts need to be added into the mix here. There was an AfD at the very beginning of this article, started by someone who is not only voting "keep" this time but is also the source of the vote solicitation evidenced on the AfD page (as disclosed by someone who also voted "keep", both times.) As I recall, there was a clear majority in favor of deletion, but "no consensus" and it was closed on that basis. More recently, someone unrelated to any of the prior "activity" (to choose a neutral word) proposed deletion and the AfD was closed as a "speedy keep" less than 40 minutes after it was opened. Only a few people voted in that AfD, and neither I nor (I suspect) most of the other people interested in the article were even aware of it until after it was over. Therefore, I suggest that the "second" AfD not even "count." That brings us to the current, truly "second" nomination, proposed more than two months (and many hundreds of edits) after the first one closed. This AfD was started by a user, Haham hanuka, who has not been involved in any of the prior "activity." In fact, I just looked at his (the gender is an assumption on my part) contribution history and it confirms that he has never edited the article in question (except for the Aug. 2 placement of a deletion-related tag that apparently did not result in a true AfD, followed by the placement of a tag related to this AfD) and that he also has never contributed to the article's talk page. He is not involved in the arbitration and, although I did not check, most likely never participated in any of the "centralized discussions." It appears that he simply happened upon the article, maybe he read the talk pages and maybe he didn't, and decided to nominate the article for deletion. I assume that this is permitted. I do not see where Haham hanuka has "abused" anything relating to this AfD, he simply put up a nomination and as of last count, well over 60 people have voted. After some initial hesitation (because my thought has been that there should be some "process" following the close of the pending arbitration to determine whether there will be a separate article on this subject and, if so, what its name should be), I decided that since the question has been asked, I will vote, and I did ("delete or merge.") This is also not a case of someone "losing" an AfD and then posting it again "over and over" as in a previous case referred to above. The person who started the first AfD is now against it and is soliciting votes against it, the nominator this time was not involved previously, and I suspect that some of the other "delete" voters (including some of those involved in the arbitration) share my concerns about the timing. Nevertheless, I do not see this as anything other than a legitimate AfD. Whether some of the voting practices are questionable, I will leave to more experienced persons. Excuse the length of this comment, I felt it was all relevant. 6SJ7 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The abuse is in the initial nomination by Haham hanuka: "Stinks of POV, useless, non encyclopedic, propagadna..." As I said above, Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Abuse of deletion process states: "XfD(deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept." Haham hanuka's nomination is based essentially on the grounds that he doesn't like it ("useless"), that it's against his beliefs ("propaganda"), and that it's not presented neutrally ("Stinks of POV"). None of those are grounds for deletion. -- ChrisO 20:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But if you look at many of the "delete" or "delete or merge" or "merge" votes that have been cast, various people have stated their own grounds, rather than "delete per nom." In fact I believe there are not many of the latter. I referred to all of my past comments on the matter, which I believe support my vote. The point is, can't people decide on their own on what grounds they wish to vote? It doesn't seem fair to invalidate an AfD because you don't happen to like how the nominator chose to phrase his nomination. Your proposed action would wipe out the votes of 60+ people who presumably exercised their own free will in deciding how to vote... not that it is really going to matter, given the spamming that was apparently done in favor of a "keep" vote. Personally I think the spam-ees can exercise their free will how they wish also, but evidently it is against the rules anyway. Why don't you seem to be concerned about that, rather than focusing on a poorly worded nomination? 6SJ7 21:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about it - don't think I'm not. It's just that it seems a bit futile to raise a fuss about the course of this AfD when the basis of the AfD is so fundamentally flawed. -- ChrisO 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Closed early as no consensus; see my rational on the project page. El_C 21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think there has been abuse of process here, but not by the person who nominated the article for deletion. 6SJ7 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And now, of course, if anyone nominates this article for deletion in the future, this time is going to be cited as the "third" time, making the next time the "fourth" time. Due to what has happened here, this one shouldn't count, and the "second" one doesn't count either for the reasons I have stated above, so this article has really only been validly considered for deletion once. 6SJ7 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The nominator is a problematic editor, blocked many times for disruptive conduct and policy violation; also permanently banned from the Hebrew wiki. He did not bother to correctly format the AfD, nor take better care to formulate the rational — all this while an RfAr is ongoing. El_C 21:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse early close, IMO it will still be no consensus after the 120 hours grace, so there's no point in prolonging it further. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

I have stubbified and protected Barbara Schwarz. This article is quite seductive, as it is interesting, but throughout the article there is liberal use on unreliable sources as well as a tone of hysteria. I hope administrators will find time to create an article which conforms to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Fred Bauder 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning to have a crack at this, since I know something of the matter. I'd appreciate neutral input on whatever I manage to come up with (and thanks for stepping in on this one, Fred). -- ChrisO 19:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred what you've done (deleting all record of prior edits leaving a two line stub; plus the talk page is also deleted and 7 pages of archives) is outrageous. Some editors (myself included) spent a lot of time to create that article, and whilst I agree looking at the cache on google that the article obviously morphed into an unacceptable form, that was no reason to remove all the information that was sourced correctly. Are you denying the Salt Lake Tribune is a reliable source? The Associated Press? You've absolutely destroyed all the hard work of many editors.

If you were going to take the liberty of doing what you've done you should at least have left the reliable information in. You've even removed all the categories! (she doesn't even merit the living person's category anymore?)

I actually sat down to rewrite this article but in hindsight I don't see why I should ahve to do it all AGAIN. Maybe you could explain that to me? - Glen 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikkipedia

Wikkipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a bona fide account, but I suppose this username is in violation of WP:UN ("Confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames: ... Names that include commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms, or imply an official position on Wikipedia"). I'm not quite sure what to say to this user in such a situation, though, or where to report it; and that's why I just dump it here on the WP:ANI doorstep. Sandstein 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

At first his contributions did not appear to be malicious, so I simply left a note on his talk page requesting that he get a new account, but now he is getting into controversial issues by revert warring at Parkinson's Disease. I'm tempted to block the account indefinitely for violating WP:UN policies should he continue editing without addressing my concerns on his talk page. I avoided it at first so an autoblock wouldn't interfere. Cowman109^Talk 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tojo Thatcher131 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Cicero Dog evading block... again

Cicero Dog (talk · contribs) is evading his indefinate block using 88.111.131.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He has made 4 personal attacks with this IP [98][99][100][101][102]

Thanks Computerjoe's talk 19:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really standard speedy deletion requests

I've nominated several lists and a template for speedy deletion. I don't think they meet the standard rules for speedy deletions. They all include redlinked or unlinked names. The lists or templates they are on would be defamatory if they are not accurate. Since the names don't have articles the potentially defamatory information is unsourced. Under the current policy regarding biographies of living persons such information would deleted without hesitation if in ordinary articles. So I think the lists and template should be speedy deleted. Please comment if this isn't OK. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how almost anything you nommed could be plausibly speediable, nor do I follow your claims that they are defamatory. JoshuaZ 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speedy deletion, in my narrow mind, seems to be for uncontroversal deletions for things that can be easily agreed that it's "junk," based on reading WP:CSD for the Xth time. I've gone through some of your taggings and it's not speedy like, I recommend using a WP:PROD or taking it to WP:AfD. Yanksox 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be almost a WP:POINT set of speedies, although I can't make out what the point is. For example, he argues that List of gay porn stars. He argues that the list is "inconsistent with WP policy concerning biographies of living persons. None of the unlinked names are sourced. Calling someone a porn star is at least potentially defamatory" Saying that there is someone with that name who is a porn star - very hard to see how that is potentially defamatory since if they are red linked they don't give any other details. I furthermore don't see saying someone is a porn star as inherently defamatory, nor do I think many editors would. JoshuaZ 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A more serious problem after looking through is that some of the non-red linked ones go to the wrong people. JoshuaZ 21:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't hard for me to imagine that, for instance, a politician might feel defamed by having an article about them on that list. Jkelly

I've removed all the redlinks/disambiguation pages from Template:Irish Clerical Child Sex Abusers and moved them to the talk page for verification. -- nae'blis 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One definition of defamation listed in the WP article is "any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them." There are many reasonable people who would think less of someone who was a porn star or sex trade worker. US law is statebystate. Porn stars have sex for money and many people think of them as prostitutes. These are "negative" statements to many many people to use Jimbo's word and should be sourced if they're to be in WP. But the lists with so many nolinked and redlinked names are obviously unsourced. What happens if the names match up to real actors or models? Even if that's not what the person who wrote the list meant. Some of the names are obvious fakes that no one outside porn would use but there are lots of "real" names. No good reason to keep these lists and template around but lots of problems. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing redlinks as a problem, since the redlinks don't even claim they are the same people. Should someone possibly ask the foundation's counsel? This really doesn't seem like an issue. JoshuaZ 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If the article exists then the source for the claim can be presumed to be at the article. If it is a red link and there is no source with the red link then there is no source and due to lack of verifyability it should be deleted. WAS 4.250 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocks or investigations needed

Could an admin please block 64.34.166.88 and 205.188.117.74 per the vile edits at User_talk:JzG/Laura which appear to be a continuation of a situation described above beginning after User:ParalelUni's block. You will have to check history as the edits have been reverted, thank goodness. These IP's appear to have other, non-problematic edits but an admin should be able to tell whether there are any factors weighing against at least a short-term block. If this has already been taken care of, please disregard this notice. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of the two IP's you mention 205.188.117.74 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) is an AOL account, so it is dynamic and long blocks probably won't help. The other, 64.34.166.88 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) have been blocked for a week. --TeaDrinker 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:El_C Vandalism by Administrator(Removing Warnings)

Wikipedia:Removing_warnings: "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism...Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings." He didn't archive, he outright deleted the warning. Per Wikipedia:Removing_warnings he needed to use the proper method of {warning-for-removal} if he felt a template was being used incorrectly.

Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

Tag Added: 22:59, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[103]]

Elapsed time: 17 minutes

Tag Removed: 23:16, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[104]]

Sarastro777 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First, may I say, please don't troll. El_C is a responsible admin and there is no evidence of vandalism, therefore your misusing the warning templates. 216.78.95.229 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no unqualified right to hand out warnings at will. Many people consider removing warnings inappropriate, but not in all circumstances. AFAICT, this was an ongoing dispute about the contents of your userpage, and there was existing discussion about it here on AN/I (which seems now to have disappeared?) in which several administrators were already involved. Given these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would have been to engage in the discussion here, or initiate the dispute resolution process, not issuing a warning. Labelling someone a vandal is not helpful, and will likely antagonise anyone who would otherwise be sympathetic towards you. --bainer (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the archived AN/I entry is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125#Personal Attack by User:Sarastro777. -Will Beback 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to dig up dirt on me (not the subject of complaint) is not going to distract from the fact an Administrator bypassed all procedure and deleted a warning tag, completely against the rules (above). This Admin was blanking my userpage and I was not informed of this incident board until later by an entirely different user. Again, if Admin disagrees he is vandalizing then there is a procedure to remove the tag which does not involve deleting it himself 17 minutes later. Don't attack me because HE broke the rule which is very explicit above. Sarastro777 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not an isolated incident. El-C have done this to me as well (removal of my attempts to resolve disputes with her). She has hard time dealing with critism in a comunicative way. She either drop the whole subject of try to remove her opponent - this at least have been my expiriance. It seems she thinks that Wikipedia is a zerosum game. Zeq 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Avraham Vandalism (Removing Warnings)

Avraham removed a vandalism tag I added to the talk page of another user that was blanking my userpage User:Sarastro777. This action itself is considered vandalism per Wikipedia:Removing_warnings. The tag was put in place according to Wikipedia:Vandalism.. this would not be the first time someone deleting a warning tried to excuse the behavior by claiming templates are being used improperly. If he had a dispute with it, he or the user for whom I left the tag should have used the proper method of {warning-for-removal}, not made an arbitrary decision to delete it on their own per the instructions in Wikipedia:Removing_warnings

Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

Tag Added: 23:00, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[105]]

Tag Removed: 03:24, 11 August 2006 Diff: [[106]]

Sarastro777 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh? Other user's pages are none of your concern. Leave it to that user to do/undo whatever he/she wants. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting my vandalism warning tag is my concern, and is a blockable offense per the guideline citations above. Your point is unclear. Sarastro777 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the page you are citing is a proposal. It is not active policy, and indeed is opposed by many. --CBD 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made this section a child of the above section, they're basically about the same issue. See my reponse above. --bainer (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, you cannot go around attacking people and improperly applying warning messages. You are being disruptive and uncivil. I have seen abusive editors blocked for far less. Please knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Placing vandalism warnings on edits that are not vandalism, and calling non-destructive edits vandalism is itself vandalism. There is no penalty for reverting vandalism, even when it takes the form of a tag. Geogre 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am yet uncertain as to what Sarastro777 intended to accomplish by placing —and Oiboy77 in restoring— {{blatantvandal}} on my talk page. El_C 03:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A tag? The form of a tag? Argghh. I've said this before, and will pay good money to the user who makes me a {{tagwarningwarning}} template of it: opinions don't acquire any miraculous virtue or special immunity against removal by being expressed in the form of a tag. Too many people have the notion that if only they use a tag, they're free to harass users by endlessly reverting their talkpages and threatening them. Planting warning templates frivolously and then triumpantly accusing the person who removes them of "vandalism" is misuse of process. I'm getting so I'd like to see it a blockable offence. Bishonen | talk 04:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

How many users that get a warning tag feel it is illegimate? Probably most of them. That's why there is a procedure to follow, which does not involve unilateral deletion. These are really not convincing arguments. Is there a second set of rules that applies to everyone else besides me? What is written in policy and what happened, which violated that policy is all crystal clear (above). People can deny, rationalize, and namecall me all they want. All this does is attack Wikipedia and its processes, not me. Sarastro777 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, strongly object to any user with over one 7 digit in their username place a {{blatantvandal}} on my talk page — I (as of now) adhere to "No Sevens" (as mentioned endlessely in other contexts, we're allowed to have one!). :) El_C 05:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Azskeptic (talk · contribs)

Azskeptic has threatened another user on this site using personal information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ParalelUni#Blocked

"Spike, stop it. Your identity is known and if you keep making threats a mental health evaluation will be asked for in your county court to see if help can be given to you. Sorry to the administrators to witness such a meltdown in public from a SC medical school student. Azskeptic 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

I ask that this statement be removed and this user be banned. He knows this user from another site and this is def. cyber-stalking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs) .

This drops, and Azskeptic is forgiven.

After advice from other admins, Azskeptic has already removed that threat, and rightly so, making threats such as this sets a poor example for other users. However I will not take any further action; Azskeptic was not acting out of malice, but (over)reacting to the most despicable trolling that I have ever encountered. Any rational user would forgive Azskeptic for this transgression. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually a threat you know. He's jocular, although angry, and saying that the fellow needed psychiatric help. That's help, not incarceration. It's still inappropriate, and it's well removed, but let's take it easy with this "everything is a threat" bit. Geogre 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR?

User:Samstayton is repeatedly inserting extreme POV unreferenced and also partially absurd statements into the Lexus LS article, which is a GA and is maintained mainly by User:Gerdbrendel. This may actually qualify as 3RR, as most of the content is being reinserted by means of reverting previous edits by other users. Three such occurences took place in the last 4 hours (see page history) - on the last occassion, some new statements were added to another section. In the meantime, the user has also placed a very disturbing comment on User:Gerdbrendel's talk page ([107]). I am not really familiar with WP procedures regarding such occurences, as for the first time I have met with such stubbornness. What is the proper thing to do now? Bravada, talk - 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of concern about any editor "maintaining" an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I used to too. But until we get something better, people caring enough about an article to protect it from misinformation is our current best quality control measure. WAS 4.250 04:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sickest vandalism yet

I just reverted the sickest vandalism yet to JzG's talk page. I don't even want to describe the content here but it may require an ISP report and/or contacting the appropriate authorities. This situation should receive attention at the most senior possible level, and as many folks as possible should watchlist that page. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Noticed this too - would semi-protection to the page page make sense for the time being? The IPs are AOL... /wangi 02:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP I just blocked wasn't AOL. It was a New Jersey Comcast one. Jkelly 02:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, that IP signed here as User:152.163.100.74, which is marked as an AOL IP. Jkelly 02:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd just looked the user talk page the first time round (User:152.163.100.197) and noticed it was AOL - didn't notice the subsequent edit(s) weren't. Thanks/wangi 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I sprotected the relevant pages -- Samir धर्म 03:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is indef-blocked user ParalelUni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading his block. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 03:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on this block log, I'm wondering if our sick vandal isn't Jason Gastrich:

• 20:12, August 11, 2006, JzG (Talk) blocked #226277 (expires 20:12, August 12, 2006) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "AlwaysSummer". The reason given for AlwaysSummer's block is: "Vandalism, whitewashing of degree mill".)

...

• 20:03, August 11, 2006, Jkelly (Talk) blocked 64.34.168.29 (contribs) (expires 03:03, August 13, 2006, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (IP address being used for harassment of other users)

User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so. I agree that it's probably ParalelUni, despite the Gastrich-like hyperbole -- Samir धर्म 03:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich was after a US reglious-based diploma mill, right? This is about a UK medical school diploma mill; it's at RFAR right now. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

DRV that's outta hand outta control

On the Star Wars Galaxy Emulator DRV [108] here, user:Antman seems to be so passionate about it that he's making threats. I do not wish to go the blocking route. I would much rather he calm down, recognize that he has skated out beyond the thin ice, and is putting all his time here in jeopardy. If anyone has an interest in Star Wars and the like and feels like putting a calming hand on his shoulder, it would be a mitzveh. If no one does, then let's keep our eyes peeled in case he pops. Geogre 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to be going kinda crazy. Not to assume bad faith, but I would investigate the single-purpose accounts tagged on that discussion, as there's a possibility of sockpuppetry. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 03:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I just left him a note. Hopefully he cools down. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible communism vandal sock

69.67.229.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added {{communism}} to Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines. Viridae^Talk 04:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

69.67.230.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) same thing, this time to User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf. Viridae^Talk 04:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

66.218.22.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this time added {{socialism}} to 69.67.229.130's talk page. Viridae^Talk 04:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

66.218.22.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I just became Stalin for a while! (vandalised my talk page). Viridae^Talk 04:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All reported to WP:AIV as they are probobly the same person. Viridae^Talk 05:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked them all indefinitely after someone else blocked for only 24 hours. Cowman109^Talk 05:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Viridae^Talk 05:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are dynamic ips used by multiple users. You can't just block them indefinitely.

I recommend to keep alert for a while. I had already blocked 66.218.22.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 66.218.28.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) minutes before, and it doesn't seem to stop. Not sure if it's correct to indef block here, tho, in order to prevent collateral damage, my dear Cowman... watch out for more socks! :) Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 06:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The contributions of those editors do appear to be from only one person, though if the blocks are restricted to the IPs and not to users connected with it collateral damage could be prevented, yes? Also, perhaps we could leave a note on WP:ABUSE concerning the user? If you think I should reduce the time period of the blocks, I will, though :D Cowman109^Talk 06:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had indef blocked some of them following the same line of thought, dear C; but then reconsidered, just in case. And leave that note, and watch out - he's still busy, I just reverted your own talk page! Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright. I'll reduce the blocks (and double check to make sure block only IP addresses is checked). Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 06:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bret John

No admin seems to have noticed this section of the noticeboard so I am relisting here. Hope that's ok. Pascal.Tesson 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bret John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who may be at least a meatpuppet of User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com) is creating hoax articles at a rather alarming rate. Almost everyone of these articles are up for AfD or prod'ded; the one that has turned out to be true (Beacon House School System, Pakistan) has credibility issues because of his reputation. He's already created a new article (Rock N' Roll Racing (animated series)) that I'm probably going to have to AfD as well, since if I prod it, an anonymous user will just remove it. He's been a problem for at least five days now; action should be taken against him. Danny Lilithborne 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second that. He's continued since the above complaint, creating two new articles and a template all related to the same hoax. Pascal.Tesson 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He created two new ones, 4 Gamers and Golden Axe Series. It's becoming disruptive. Obvious hoaxes aren't grounds for speedies, he removed prod's without comment and I'm forced to AfD all of this blatant crap. Help, please. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Children

I noticed more and more "children" wikipedians on here, which is probably not a bad thing. However, these young wikipedians are not editing productively and falsely assume wikipedia to be myspace or simply their own blog. (some went as far as discussing sexual activities on wikipedia, see previous AN/I post) I think a policy is needed to raise the age limit on this site (or at least banned the self-proclaimed kid user who use wikipedia for the wrong cause). Please give me some feedbacks thanks. User:Abdullah Geelah User:Kitia User:Aint User:S-man User:Cute 1 4 u (her "friend list" on her userpage prove my point that these users consider wikipedia to be a social networking site, which is wrong and disturbing).--Bonafide.hustla 05:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear we have a 14 year old bureaucrat - I hate to be a party pooper :). Cowman109^Talk 05:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

While age is the unifying connection here, the main issue is that they are violating precepts of WP:NOT, which I have warned the last user of doing. It's not bad that these users are under the age of 18; it's bad that they are making chatroom subpages and similar myspace/social networking things. Ryūlóng 05:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, this is the anarchist in me talking, but I'd say that seems like a really bad idea. First off, how would we even enforce such a policy? Second, banning all people below a certain age is unfair. Yeah, sure, some might not be able to edit productively, but there are some who are and we of all people shouldn't make a blanket ban on all people under the age of X. If it really comes down to not allowing people to edit, do so on a case by case basis. Unless you can show that they are causing serious harm to the project, I don't see why we should really do this. And before blocking people for things like this, why not try and explain to them the importance the situation. Make sure they understand that this is not just the place for social networking and that they should be making some type of contributions. I'm sure there's something they can do that's productive. Reverting obvious vandalism isn't too hard. If someone can figure out how to look in the history and how to edit a page, they can do that. Just about everyone has something to offer. Just try and find what it is. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but if someone is putting a friend list on their userpage and over 90% of their edits are on some else's talkpage, they are using their accounts for the wrong reason. Next thing you know, they probably start net-dating or spreading pornographic contents/sexually suggestive languages to minors. We can just tell them nicely to take the social-networking stuff to myspace or you'll be blocked.--Bonafide.hustla 05:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not go for an age limit on Wikipedia, since that is going to be hard to prove. However, the conduct of the said-users should be looked at, and if they try to turn WP into myspace or something along those lines, we can either turn the direction to help them edit WP, or we can persue other methods to stop the behavior. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Young_administrator_candidates gives some insight as well. Oh, and anyway, this topic is innapropriate for ANI as it doesn't require immediate administrator intervention. It may be better off in the village pump proposals area. Cowman109^Talk 05:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with Children chatting with their peers on Wikipedia, just as there's nothing's wrong when adults do, nonetheless, this purely social interaction needs to be proportional to the amount of productive work being done. They also need to be protected from predators and trolls (who might pretend to be children). In short, some (more, as I keep saying) supervision and oversight is needed. But so long as we're straight-forward about these principles (and dangers) with them, I think it's well worth every extra effort. El_C 05:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've kept an eye on these ones, and I think they're contributing enough. When their behaviour turns less than productive (i.e. User:Shakim67 who I'd lump in the same age range), we'll just have to deal with things on a case by case basis. Would be good if we had someone nice (for want of a better word) who they'd be less intimidated by when we need to intervene -- Samir धर्म 07:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A hotel IP

Recently, an edit at User talk:12.47.161.120 brought up that the IP belongs to a hotel, wherever it may be. I believe that this could be a possible issue, and that is why I am bringing it up here. Ryūlóng 05:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Socks to evade ban Zinedine231

The following accounts are all making the same vandal edits to the same articles. I have put in a checkuser request to verify and listed them on the sock page. I have put notices on all the accounts. In the meantime, I think the evidence is so clear that an immediate ban can be made. All of these accoutns have made repeated vandal posts to a handful of articles. All their edits have been reverted. All have warnings on their talk page.

• Robert Spencer1123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sfdpoij (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shepherd Smasdfith202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shepherd Smith202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zinedine231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block them (and their IP) until checkuser can confirm (it's so straightforward I don;t think checkuser is even necessary but I put it in anyway).--Tbeatty 06:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like User:Cactus Man has got to these. Thanks. --Tbeatty 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• All now blocked and I've watchlisted the affected articles to keep an eye out for future incarnations. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gabriel_Pradiipaka Block review

I have blocked Gabriel_Pradiipaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 1 month, for his link-spamming, threatening other users, putting "Divine curses", and also incivility and rant against wikipedia. I am putting the block for review by other admins. Feel free to change the block if you feel necessary. Thanks. --Ragib 08:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Divine curses" does sound intriguing - were the admins able to remove these, or does it require a bureaucrat... :) - David Oberst 08:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I take the liberty to respond. He was incivil, he made divine curses, but the external links that he inserted were appropriate if we leave out the fact that he was the owner of the website. A rant against Wikipedia is, I think, not a valid reason for a block. Andries 08:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

At the request of the user, I made the block indef, but as usual, feel free to pre-empt the block if you feel necessary. Thanks. --Ragib 08:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

the "divine curses" are of course unacceptable and sufficient reason for a block. As Andries, I am unsure about the "link-spamming" charge, since the site linked is actually quite good, and the user added the link to pertinent articles: I doubt the links would have been removed if he had not self-identified as the site's owner. It appears the user was treated somewhat unfairly preceding his outburst. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)