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

Abuse of Administrator tools by JzG

JzG is using sysop powers abusively in an ongoing dispute over at Arbustoo's RfC. JzG has been systematically removing evidence contrary to his position, and deleting the edit histories involved, in an attempt to protect Arbustoo's incivil and libellous behavior. I hope someone with appropriate authority can investigate this immediately. Thanks, Bannana Peel 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What Jason Gastrich (for it is he) is referring to here is the blocking of another of his sockpuppets, King_Blinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which removed unflattering comments from the above RfC using misleading edit summaries (e.g. 'rv willy on wheels') in an attempt to disguise it. --Malthusian (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No sysop powers were used in the edits described. I removed discussion to the Talk page where it belonged, and struck two endorsements with reasons given (for example, users with no edit history who admit to using multiple accounts and who have taken no part in attempting to resolve a dispute (other than personal abuse against its subject) are not normally accepted as appropriate to endorse an RfC). These actions can be reviewed and revised by the community if they see fit, in the ususal way. The RfC is vexatious and quite likely a violation of WP:POINT but some of us at least are trying to ensure process is followed.

However, I congratulate Bannana_Peel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on finding AN/I with their very first edit - newbies are obviuously getting more clueful by the day, what with the one who raised Arbustoo's RFC managing it within their first ten edits and all. Just zis Guy you know? 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're out of your mind. In addition to numerous breaches of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, you constantly contradict yourself. The fact remains that administrator tools were used, and I cannot show diffs because I cannot see what you have deleted. Please think again if you think you can get away with this. I'm sick and tired of the constant harassment and incivility in you and the other cabalists' campaign of disinformation. Your presence is not needed here, only that of a steward, so shoo. This issue is not going to go away, and I'll take this rampant abuse on your part all the way to Jimbo if thats what it takes to ensure a fair and balanced encyclopedia.

Peace in Christ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannana Peel (talk • contribs) 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can see what JzG has deleted in this log. He has not deleted any revisions of the page in question. Chick Bowen 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're a new editor, how can you be "sick and tired" of JzG? <ponder> As for the rest, yes, please be sure to take it right to Jimbo, and ensure that your complaint is as long as possible while you're at it -- he likes to read, from what I hear. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

JamesMLane's futility principle comes to mind. . . Chick Bowen 19:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The admin tools are: rollback, block user, delete article, view/restore deleted history, protect/unprotect article. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to identify which of these was used in the case in question (hint for newbies: "none of the above" is a good first guess). Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the first instance, I think he's referring to your block of the sockpuppet that was continually removing unflattering comments. --Malthusian (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that. That, too, is visible to anyone who cares to look, open to scrutiny and reversal by other admins. But now you mention it, Gastrich does have a history of complaining about the identification of socks, even when the allegations are subsequently proven to be true. The best one was when he used one of his sock puppets to send me a Wikipedia email protesting innocence and asking for it to be unblocked, from an address on his own domain! It has been asserted that some new users go for weeks or even months without attempting to whitewash a single article on a Southern Baptist or unaccredited school, but they are not much in evidence hereabouts. Just zis Guy you know? 23:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen JzG abuse his adminstratorship once and the fact that Bannana Peel cannot form a coherent argument to demonstrate otherwise and only has two edits demonstrates this attack is rubbish. This is a fine example of why Jason Gastirch should be permanently banned. Instead of reverting vandalism or improving wikipedia, JzG is forced here to defend himself from a Gastrich sock puppet who only has a two edit history. Arbusto 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's happened, and I've learned from it. Nobody's perfect (especially me). Just zis Guy you know? 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you're as close to Mary Poppins as they come, one puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Banana Peel is a very cluey newbie. Not only is he "sick and tired" of JzG, but he seems to have a good grasp of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, even knowing the link abbreviations. Interestingly enough, he's contradictorally unaware of what constitutes a use of sysop powers, and what doesn't. Sockpuppet check, anyone? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 10:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell vandalism

User:MSTCrow (edit | [[Talk:User:MSTCrow|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Gmaxwell has been continuously reverting this user's page to versions he prefers and considers "not harmful to the project." MSTCrow - 07:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this alert from Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress for discussion, using the original edit summary as the heading. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell keeps vandalizing my userpage. I have tried to reason with him in User talk:Gmaxwell, but his response is that since I don't look kindly upon his vandalism, he's going to continue vandalizing my userpage. I have shown that there's no Wikipedia policy to justify his vandalism, but he won't listen. He has been harassing me constantly, and vandalizing my userpage minutes after I've fixed it. He then disregarded the final warning vandalism template, saying that basically he does't care, and believes that he can vandalize my page. It's my page and he cannot fiddle around with it as if it was a Wikipedia article. Thanks. MSTCrow 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Preceeding comment moved from WP:AIVpschemp | talk 08:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually MSTCrow it's the project's page and they are just letting you use it. That being said, I can't see any defence for Gmaxwell's three reverts here. - brenneman^{T}{L} 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion thread on this, [1]. I'd really like to discuss his userpage with him, and I've made a polite attempt. MSTCrow continues to respond with hostility. I honestly believe his userpage is harmful, and I'd really like him to explain why it isn't. It isn't a typical userpage, so please read the complete discussion between him and I before passing judgment. Because MSTCrow was refusing to even consider making some changes, it left me no choice but to make changes in the hope of either causing an improvement or starting a real discussion. I'm not trying to prevent him from having userboxes, although I think that whatever he does have should be presented in a way which makes them secondary to the purpose of his userpage. I'm willing, and even eager to discuss and compromise with him... but ultimately there is nothing special about the user namespace which excludes it from the normal editing process. No one gets the right to unilateral set the content of any page on Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use the word vandalism here. GMaxwell has certainly edited the page, he hasn't vandalised it. I'll go and have a word with him about it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa. I don't expect everyone to agree with my edits. But, right, it's not vandalism. I put a fair amount of time and effort into both attempting to reason with MSTCrow, and creating a proposed new version. --Gmaxwell 15:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, (athough be careful about the 3RR) but why do you care so much what one person does with their user page? I can see where you're coming from and understand your oppostion, but is this realy worth disrupting peace between users? It's not lke Deeceevoice's page or something. Just leave him alone and all will be well. Why fight this battle?Gator (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about any one particular user... I've cleaned up a great many 'user pages' which were created by people who have never edited the encyclopedia (i.e. they showed up, threw up some links to their website and never used their account again). I completed the backlog of those some time ago. After having discussions with a number of people, it became clear to me that highly unprofessional userpages by active users have a potential to be harmful to the project... so I plan on having a conversation with the user attached to each one I encounter. Because of the effort required to carefully discuss and consider each situation I intend to only talk to one person at a time. I believe User:MSTCrow is special to some extent (although it is not unique) because in addition to the high level of unprofessional looking and potentially offensive content it had no balancing content related to MSTCrow's work on the project. I hope that, in the future, my interactions on this subject will be completely friendly and non-disruptive... and I intend to work hard on ensuring that, but there will still be some users who respond to a polite, compassionate, and well considered request to consider altering or accepting alterations to their userpage with contempt and incivility. In such, hopefully rare, cases we may have to ask ourselves, ultimately, "Is this the sort of person we want contributing to our project?". ... but that is a question that goes far beyond me, all I can do is try to cooperate with people to improve things. --Gmaxwell 20:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I understnad all of that and think it's great that you're so active and have a cause and all, but when you meet resistance like this in the future, my advice is to just let that fish go. They're not violating policy and if they don't want to listen to reason, then it's just not worth it (unless there is a policy change). Like I said before, pick your battles. Just my thoughts.Gator (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I support what Gmaxwell is trying to achieve here, I just don't know if I can endorse his methods. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked MSTCrow, primarily because I see no clean hands in this conflict. MSTCrow's userpage is idiosyncratic, but is hardly the most offensive user page around. I request that everyone to safe their weapons, back off coolly, and get back to creating an encyclopedia. ➥the Epopt 01:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Aucaman and User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako

Anti-Iranian attacks are taking place on Iranian articles. Articles include: Persian people, Iranian peoples, Ibn Sina, Al Biruni etc all mentioned in here: User_talk:ManiF#Iranian_watchdog

Mainly by User:Aucaman and User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako, please also read this comment User_talk:Heja_helweda#Semitic-Turkic_people which reads "The modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world"..

I hope admins can take this matter on hand, because a lot of time is being wasted by Iranians providing sources on the talk pages, however disputes carry on and edit wars etc etc with no intention of wikipedia's interest, but all politically motivated individuals are doing their best to start a small war on here.

I leave it to you, --Kash 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this request. User:Aucaman, User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako are engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing/deleting the Iran-related articles, pushing their anti-Iranian POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, applying the straw-man falsification approach, trying to establish new 'facts" based on their own personal assumptions and political beliefs. Please take a closer look at this issue. --ManiF 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore; User:Aucaman has been warned about the mentioned actions by several users on several occasions. Yet, in clear defiance of the wikipedia rules, he keeps reverting the warnings on his talk page. [2] [3] --ManiF 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The contingent of Persian/Iranian editors is strongly nationalist and extremely hostile to any editors who challenge Persian ethnic domination, speak for minority peoples, or challenge a corporatist, ultra-nationalist version of Iranian history that sees the "nation" and the "people" extending far back into prehistory. The current trend in history and archaeology is to challenge this sort of nationalism. See Historiography and nationalism. Challengers should insist that their version be allowed as an alternate view, rather than insisting that it is "the truth"; the nationalists should be willing to allow both versions in the article. Zora 19:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1) You are generalizing a group of editors based upon your personal perceptions and biases.

2) This is not about nationalism, revisionist theories and assumptions that can't supported by any authoritative sources have no place on wikipedia.

3) Making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims that "the modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world" and engaging in a campaign of misinformation and deception to push your POV and advance your political goals does not qualify as "speaking for minority peoples". --ManiF 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I don`t like jumping on the band wagon, however, it does seem that user Aucaman think the article about [persian people] has anti-semetic words like Aryan, even after I gave him refrences that say it describes the ancestors of Iranians. And user User:Heja helweda does not simply write a section in the discussion page, he or she floods the discussion pages with multiple headings and copies and pastes his or her texts in many other discussion pages. It is very disruptive. I do kind of agree that these users are cause chronic disruptions without too much merit. ThanksZmmz 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with the claims against these three wikipedians. I have seen many of the editing they have done and they are mostly baseless and outrageous claims trying to say many people and Iranians are not the same people as Persians of the past. They edit these articles with out any refrences and most people have repeatedly told them to stop, but they keep on doing it agian.

While I was trying to take part in certain discussions in a peaceful and respectful manner, I have been subject to numerous personal attacks. Please kindly check out the link. I have been accused to be Extremist, Nationalists, Pro-Seperatist Kurd, Iranian-hater, time waster. [4]Heja Helweda 00:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, these were not toward you, secondly It was because your fellow friend Aucman, has been calling all Iranian wikipedians nationalists! thirdly..

Talk:Persian_people#Article_on_ethnic_variety and Talk:Persian_people#Estimation of mixed populations shows how racist you guys really are, and you are infact carrying out research on to this idea posted here: User_talk:Heja_helweda#Semitic-Turkic_people which reads "The modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world"..

Which again, looks like you are Anti-Iranian and carrying out original research which does NOT belong to wikipedia. Its a whole campaign which has to be stopped.--Kash 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I was invited to this discussion, I basically have to say the following. Our minds work in surprising ways at the subconscious level. We're not even aware of it. Even at the risk of seeming too philosophical, I would request all the editors involved to take some time off and introspect a bit deeper on why do you want those changes made. In what way will it comfort your mind/ego? What if the reality were otherwise? Once you meditate on this, perhaps the whole thing won't look as important to you as it is looking now. Come back to the discussion from that unattached position, and I'm sure the entire issue will be resolved in no time. My personal take: As a person who identifies himself as Aryan, and living in a social system which kept intermixing impossible for millenia, I'll still be surprised to learn that no intermixing ever occured. deeptrivia (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that some 'mixings' have happened, however this has happened everywhere in the world. It has not been especially significant enough to mention it in Iranian articles. This is because the arabisation of for example Egypt, have been truely significant, and the original berbers are only a small percentage of population these days, and they have totally lost their culture. On the other hand, in Iran this is not the case, Iranians are so proud of their culture that even over a thousand years of being of mainly muslim population, they still celebrate the pre-historic Zoroastrian festival of Norouz. This is why there is no need to mention 'guess work', 'estimates', or some obsecure studies about possible mixings and inter-marriages, because they will not be useful to the article. These, as you must agree after reviewing the current attacks, are part of a campaign to change Iranian's identity which they have kept for thousands of years. --Kash 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kash and others

Some of these editors are extremely racist and anti Iranian. And whenever we try to correct them we are all called extremist nationalist and they are quick to generalize like Zora.

Some of their comments are extremely disturbing like the one who was trying to delete the world Persian by saying that no such race exist and the one who is trying to say that we are a combination of Semitic and Turkic and he wants to prove it to the world!! Obviously they are on a mission to erase the word “Persian” in any way they can. One of them wrote a paragraph basically implying that Persians are Arab by blood because there has been some interracial marriages after Arab invasion of Iran!!!! Totally refusing to mention that many other races, Greek, Turkish, Russian, …etc has also invaded Iran throughout the history. They are politically motivated and they are very biased.

Gol 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this. For the record, I am a secular person of Jewish background. I don't think the word "Aryan" smacks of racism when used in the narrow sense related to Persian ethnic heritage. (When it is used to mean "Indo-European", that is another matter.) However, because of its tricky connotations in the Western world, mostly due to its use by the Nazis, the term should be glossed whenever it is used. That is to say, on first mention in an article there should always be at least a specific link and typically a clarifying statement explaining the sense in which the word is used. For the opposite extreme—Nazi use as a seal of approval completely detached from actual ethnic heritage—see honorary Aryan.

As for any suggestion that the Persians are Arabs, it is really hard to imagine something sillier. I don't even know where to begin on such a ridiculous statement. It's as if someone were to point at Romania's one-time Hohenzollern monarchs and at the Transylvanian Saxons and say that therefore Romanians are German. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's even sillier to claim that there exists a group of people that doesn't contain some admixture of genes. We have some Persian editors claiming that "we have no Arab blood, well, only a tiny little bit, not enough to count" -- which goes against common sense and current scientific knowledge. Claiming that were NO Indo-European speaking tribes isn't right, but claiming that all the people who speak an Indo-European language are descendents of IE tribes is dead wrong. Language goes by nurture, not genetics. Both sides in the dispute would do well to do some reading in linguistics and physical anthropology. Zora 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No one is pure Zora and don’t try to say that we claimed that because we did not. Would you like to question how “German” the German people are? After all they can not be 100% German can they? We carry blood of many different races and no one claims that we have NO outside blood. But some editors were questioning the legitimacy of the term Persian by saying that no such race exists!! That we were mixed to a such degree that we should no longer be called Persian!! If that is the case then there is no other race in the world either since on one has stayed pure. how about removing the name of each and every race in the world? These editors are biased and motivated based on personal issues. Britannic says Iranian people are descendants of Aryans and I am sure its writers knew that anyone with common sense would realized that it does not mean all Iranians today are Pure Aryans but that their original ancestors were Aryans. All we want to do is mention exactly what Britannica says.

Gol 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I have been on Wikipedia since late 2004. I have around 12000 edits. Here is what I have observed of the mentioned parties involved:

• User:Aucaman: I do not know him/her. I cant really say anything about this user. Honestly, I think this user is only jumping on the bandwagon for the sake of polemics, and is simply misinformed about some realities.
• User:Diyako: This user has a good history of malicious anti-Iranian edits. It took me User:Refdoc, User:Dr.Hamed, User:TimBits and others two months to stop him from erasing the history and existence of the Azeri minority in West Azarbaijan Province of Iran, when he tried wiping out information pertaining to the Azeris in favor of a Kurdish one. Diyako is also the person who initiated the campaign to delete the Iranian people page, totally ignoring the majority consensus. And he keeps accusing everyone of attacking him while he has a sad history of attacking others. See here on this page who first initiates the name calling. There he calls me "a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad..." Diyako, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• User:Heja Helweda is one of the greatest anti-Persian editors currently active on the internet. She has been disseminating mis-information not only on WP, but also in other places on the web: See here. Where it involves Kurds, I've also seen anti-Arab edits from this user too.--Zereshk 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that such editors have made Wikipedia a megaphonic platform for their racist anti-Iranian propaganda. But as I said before, these people are actually helping out western information agencies preparing for war against Iran. Before any war can happen, there are always preparations made on the internet to incline popular perception against the target country (previously Iraq, now Iran).

Therefore I support this request.--Zereshk 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! These Iranian (Farsi) users disagree with any edit done by other non-Iranian wikipedians. They have their own defintion (their own POV) and want to push it through threatening! I invite all admins to check whether who are neutral and who are pushing their pov through their hostile behavior and constant personal attacks.

ThanksDiyako Talk + 21:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• First this returns to when I was new on wikipedia and you despite of being an old wikipedian several times attacked me with most bad words. Second you have continued it even till this time which if necessary I can provide links to all of them in five minutes. Third, You Farsis (Iranians) who due to political and economical reasons have more access to internet when a wikipedian from Kurdish minority comes to wikipedia imidiately disagree with him, call him in every talk page separatist, and mispresent him to all other Iranians in a bad way. For example your links refereing that I am from CIA.!!! admins will know you.Diyako Talk + 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly support this request. I [am] believe it or not as neutral and fair as it can get. Moreover, I never would want to support anyone who is biased, and tries to force their personal beliefs on others. I am a student, and only stand on the side of facts. But after seeing quotes like this, this page by user Talk, who unfair personal attack actually says, : "In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's" Diyako, 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)”, and similar quotes from the two other users in question, I am almost convinced now, that these three users [may] have formed some sort of weird alliance or cabal, and do have their own personal politics involved in this. And, I have to tell you from experience, it is almost impossible to compromise with those who have a religious or political agenda. For the past year these three users, User:Aucaman, User:Diyako, and User:Heja Helweda have systematically reverted articles, flooded discussion pages with repetitive rhetoric without providing authoritative sources, refused to compromise with others, personally attacked others, and put banners on almost every single article which includes, Persia, Iranian people, Persian people, Persian Empire, Aryan, the word Arya, and Indo-Iranian. I invite the admins to look up the word Aryan for themselves, and not just take our word: apparently the use of this word in certain articles is these users` latest problem, even though evidence from encyclopedias was provided to them that shows the word describes an entire ethnic group and culture. Please take a look at this mediation link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people[5]. I also think it is necessary for the admins to read some of these articles, and discussion pages for themselves. It seems, there is no compromise with these three users; there [has] to be some sort of ban, so that those who sincerely try to write legitimate articles in an encyclopedia would not throw their hands down and in disgust, and leave Wikipedia because of a few problem users. I just do not know what else we can possibly do, it seems endless, mediation pages, third opinions, warnings; nothing seems to work. ThanksZmmz 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Approve for the blocking of these users. they never want to compromise, and continuously vandalise!Iranian Patriot 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support as per Zereshk's reasons. SouthernComfort 07:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

These Iranian users lost the discusstion and want admins block us!Diyako Talk + 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this request. These users have proven beyond any doubts, by their extremely anti-Iranian edits, personal accusations, and refusal to accept or even look at scholarly evidence, that they do not have noble intentions in editing pages on Wikipedia. They are simply a number of extremists who are using Wikipedia as a platform to spread falsehoods supporting their political ideologies. They have been treated by the outmost respect by the other editors. Unlike the exclusively-Kurdish, anti-Iranian, anti-Persian, at times even Anti-Azeri stance by these Kurdish editors, the Iranian editors dealing with them have always shown the most of respect for the Kurdish and other ethnic groups of Iranian peoples. The behavior of these anti-Iranian users is unacceptable and dangerous and must be dealt with accordingly. Shervink 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Strong Support All of my reasons are the same as everyone else here trying to stop these users from vandalising!! --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: The way to deal with these people is to take them to ArbCom. I think we have a case to ban them from Iranian articles based on their obsession with dismantling Iranian articles. We did this once with another user. He was banned permanently from editing specific articles.--Zereshk 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Another user has voiced his support here.--Zereshk 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Aucaman, Diyako, Heja, and also a user named Ahwaz have all been trying to insert minority viewpoints in Iran-related articles, only to be constantly reverted and attacked by a contingent of Persian editors insisting that they are disruptive, anti-Iranian, racist, etc. It would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia administrative process to use it to suppress minority voices. I'm not defending ALL the actions of the above users -- some of them have narrow viewpoints, sometimes they have little in the way of social scientific background, and they've gotten angry and used ill-tempered language themselves. Often, they seem to want to take over articles for their own viewpoints, rather than allowing all POVs to be displayed.

However, if Wikipedia is to be NPOV, it must allow Iranian ethnic minorities their say. If their arguments are specious, then that will be apparent when the arguments are displayed. However, the anti-minority editors want ALL mention of dissent squashed, which is wrong. I've gotten involved in the Khuzestan-related articles and I've been given the same treatment -- verbal abuse, removal of disputed tags, refusal to allow alterate viewpoints.

A whole swathe of articles is at issue, and it is going to some effort by non-Iranian, non-minority editors to enforce some even-handedness. Zora 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

A bird in the hand (talk · contribs) is clearly yet another sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. Evidence: this edit at Terrorism (disambiguation), philosophical discussion at ElectricRay's talk page, edits to The Singularity Is Near, and of course, posts at Talk:Terrorism. Someone please ban this one, and we'll wait for the next one. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please ask for a Checkuser test on the IP addresses.Gator (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no question that it's him or someone pretending to be him. I've blocked the account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that we've all been here before, but, just as an experiment, next time why don't you wait till Zephram actually does something trollish or objectionable before blocking him? ElectricRay 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Lady in Red (talk · contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys ... other than some strange satisfaction deriving from the power trip, what is this really achieving? That's all I want to know ... ElectricRay 18:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just about everything he does is trollish, ER, which is in part how his accounts are recognized. As User:A bird in the hand, he started trying to restore his old nonsense about terrorism. If he ever started to edit constructively, we wouldn't know it was him, and therefore he likely wouldn't be blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

we'll have to agree to disagree, Slim, but I respect your point of view. I don't think his edits to Terrorism (this time) were trollish at all: Edit 1; Edit 2; Terrorism Talk ElectricRay 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The very presence of an Arbcom-banned editor here is sufficient; it doesn't matter what he does or does not do. He made his presence obvious enough for someone to notice; as you pointed out on your own talk page, "You just couldn't stop yourself going back to that terrorism page, could you... and you were doing so well." If he stops acting like the banned Zephram Stark, he won't be treated like the banned Zephram Stark. It's that simple. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ER, this time he added the mad stuff to Terrorism (disambiguation), [6] first expanded by his sockpuppets Peter McConaughey and Legal Tender. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ahh, ok, i hadn't noticed the stuff on disambig page. Fair play to you, Slim. ElectricRay 21:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Uncle Skull (talk · contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

All three confirmed as sockpuppets of Zephram Stark. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Then has ZS's original ban been officially reset yet? --TML1988 12:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably no hurry on that. I have blocked Hypnodude (talk · contribs) as his latest. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not blocked Yellow Ribbon (talk · contribs), but someone might keep an eye on him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked it. It's him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Tipps (talk · contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

New sockpuppet: History Repeats (talk · contribs). Based on this edit at Declaration of Independence (United States) which is identical to this edit by his previous sockpuppet Cheese Curd and others. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not a sockpuppet. --History Repeats 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• New sockpuppets:
  • Intellibot (talk · contribs), based on this edit restoring talk posts by previous sockpuppets.
  • Gay Cowboys Unite! (talk · contribs). Nonsense posts to Talk:Terrorism. User name probably a play on words of previous sockpuppet User:Go Cowboys. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK blocked indefinitely, please review

I've blocked Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefintely per WP:BP#Posting personal details. I hope it will be obvious which diff I'm referring to, but I don't want to repeat it here because, well, it involves personal details. Please review and adjust block duration accordingly. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought a message on the user's talk page would have been appropriate. In any case I couldn't find the diff you were referring to, is it recent? Leithp 10:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Highly recent; check the edit summaries. However, I'm not convinced that this is an extreme violation, worth a block. Although she didn't need to state his name (or pseudonym, as the case may be), he (that is, the user whose personal details were posted) has identified that as his name/psuedonym at an off-site forum which Selina frequents. A warning probably would have sufficed, and perhaps a deletion of the offending diff from the page history. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Aha, blindingly obvious now you've pointed it out. I don't know about the block either, it looks fairly harmless and could have been handled as you suggest above. But I don't know if MSK has prior form for this kind of thing. Leithp 11:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I think this was a relatively minor case, although she has used what she takes to be my "real name". I don't think Selina is a particularly constructive editor but I'd hate for her to be punished so severely on my account. Could I please appeal for her ban to be cut to a week or until she writes to you personally to state her intention not to break this particular policy again, whichever is shorter? Grace Note 11:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with everyond else here. I think indefinite is far too harsh. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite != infinite. I explicitly asked for the block duration to be determined right here, on this board. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The information is actually almost common knowledge, so indefinite block was completely out of line. It is also not surprising who is abusing his administrative powers yet again. MarkSweep, please stop.  Grue  13:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If Grace Note says it's okay, it's okay; however, MSK had zero business doing it, and should not again. There's no point to it. --Golbez 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

She obviously learned nothing from her month long block and took no time upon returning to continue to disrupt Wikipedia. And considering that she's sysop of a site whose avowed purpose is to destroy Wikipedia, is there any reason why the ban should be lifted? -- Malber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, Grace Note has indicated he does not MSK blocked over this. If MSK keeps disrupting things, there will come an edit worth blocking for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Does 33 blocks in three months, a consistent history of edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism of policy pages, and infrequent valuable contributions indicate a valued editor? Is there a final straw? Malber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • MSK clearly has clearly made more than her fair share of disruption. Yes there is a final straw, and it probably passed some time ago, but if Grace Note doesn't want to be that final straw, there is no reason to force that upon him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think this should not be a final straw because it's so minor and I don't think is significantly indicative of continued problematic behaviour. If MSK has not changed, something a bit more serious will show up and we can permablock, and if she has changed, we should give her one last chance. I do hope she's a bit more careful in the future though. I would've unblocked myself, but Grue already took the liberty (and, I think, went too far in called it an "abusive block" -- Grue, this is a matter of judgement and I don't think where reasonable people may disagree that it's kosher to call someone abusive). --Improv 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not minor. Revealing a user's personal information without his or her consent is one of the worst things you could do. Posting personal details in an edit summary is not revertable except by deleting the related page. Grace Note may not want her to be banned because of this, indeed the information may even be bogus, but this shows what this editor is capable of. She's sysop of a site that is anti-Wikipedia. The site logs IP addresses. What's to stop her from doing this again to another editor using the information culled from that site against editors she has a personal grudge against? She has shown no contrition or repentance for her past actions, and shows no evidence of making an attempt to change her behavior. Bottom line is that she doesn't believe that she's done anything wrong and will continue to do so if she is allowed to continue to edit. And if you look at her block log, you'll see a lot of wheel warring and "last chances" have already been given. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Eh, just to comment on this, Grace Note did create a thread on the old WR forum, specifically regarding his proposal for a new forum, identifying as Grace Note, and including in the text of the thread his gmail address, which includes his alleged name. (I think that this is one of the threads that was "censored" by Igor, however; it's not there anymore, in either case). She shouldn't have stated his name, but really, at this point, the damage it could cause is relatively minor. A warning would have sufficed, and maybe a brief block. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, Grue did not. He unblocked User:User:Mistress Selina Kyle, and that's different. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, with deep doubts about this, I have unblocked properly now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Would someone do me the favor of filling me in on why Grace Note's opinion of whether MSK should be blocked is given extra weight? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The personal information release MSK was blocked for regarded Grace Note. Grace Note then noted on MSK's talkpage that he disd not want MSK blocked indefinitely over this. Kind of the same reason prosecutors listen to the victim of a crime when he advocates leniency. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK returned yesterday after a month's ban, which started life as an indefinite ban, imposed because she seemed to be here only to cause trouble, and since then, she has edit warred over a user box, recreated it while it was going through deletion review, accused me of vandalism, accused another admin of admin abuse, and posted what she believes are the personal details of an editor, an offense for which people are usually blocked indefinitely. What does any of this have to do with writing an encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing...end her suffering and ours.--MONGO 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunetely, the Mistress is not contributing to the encyclopedia in an constructive manner. She has been given an extreme amount of liniency regarding her atrocious behavior, and certainly more than should be expected. I believe Jimbo best sums it up in this comment in regards to an similar situation: Such edits deserve immediate indefinite blocking. If such a user apologizes then, optionally we might let them back. This isn't a playground, it is an encyclopedia project. -Zero^Talk 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That means there is a conflict between Jimbo's opinion and the blocking policy which says indefinite blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was Jimbo's website. -Zero^Talk 14:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, therefore Jimbo has full authority to change the blocking policy. It's just that it's easier for me to base and justify my blocks and unblocks with reference to one document, rather than statements from Jimbo which are all over the website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These aren't isolated incidents. This is a pattern of behavior indicative of a user who has a problem with not being disruptive. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK makes very few constructive edits, and anything constructive is minor. The account is mostly associated with problems; hence the 30 or so blocks in just over two months. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The value of MSK's few valid edits is, I would suggest, lower than the cost to the community in policing (and arguing about policing) the balance. This is a user who has been given so many last chances already that even in full "Mary Poppins" mode I would not bother to argue against an indef-block. As to this discussion, if she's unblocked right now then let's forget it. There will, I am completely confident, be another breach along shortly. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK Edit warring and same old behavior

Unblocked for only a few hours and she goes right back to edit warring and personal attacks in edit summaries and talk pages: [7] [8] [9] --malber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be edit-warring, but it's quite a stretch to call those diffs personal attacks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe they were personal attacks, so I sent the user to time out for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK update

I've looked into the Selina situation. Per my comment on her talk page a month ago (wherein I said she could expect a 30-day block for every instance of trolling), I have blocked her for 60 days for posting personal information, plus her comments on User talk:Netscott. Raul654 21:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No objections. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, the "personal information" is all but public knowledge, and Grace Note has, at one point, posted his email address to the off-site forum, which includes his alleged name. The harm done by posting what is nearly public knowledge is virtually nil, although I agree it wasn't appropriate for her to do so. Nonetheless, I don't think it was trolling, just that it was ignorant. She should have been warned for that. As for her comments on User talk:Netscott, you may wish to observe Netscotts comments on User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle, where the user in question thanks her for her comments. [10]. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

She wasn't referring to Netscott, she was referring to the editor she was calling an "Islamic POV-pusher." -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if someone is pushing Islamic PoV, what does that make them? True, there are more civil ways to express it. Selina's blunt, but she means well. To classify that edit as "trolling" is, to be frank, is rather innappropriate. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how being polemic and calling names equates to meaning well. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The block won't stick because the previous 24 hour block was never removed -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks in the diffs Malber submitted. I'm inclined to half the block duration to 30 days, but I won't do it without Mark's expressed permission —why? because, in contrast to many here (who have, do, and will), I have never engaged in wheel warring, and am not about to start now. Yes, a lot of energy gets expended with little returns, but it isn't such a big deal to expend it again in 30 days (and there's always the chance, albeit it seems increasingly remote, that next time will be the one). El_C 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The personal attacks I'm referring to are in the edit summaries. Without discussing first, she assumes that when she's reverted it is vandalism and in effect calls the other editor a vandal. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am OK El C's proposal to halve the block. Raul654 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. I've gone ahead and implemented it. El_C 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of MSK

I decided to go look at MSK's history to see just where things went wrong: About seven and a half hours after she joined.

Her first edit is at 14:19 eastern on December 17. By 15:05 - 46 minutes later - she had plunged head-first into the Londonderry/Derry fight, which is one of those things that is as close to settled law as you can get on Wikipedia, even removing the comment at the top of the page explaining this (first done at 15:08 - other edits were to pages which did not contain this notice). She did this without edit summaries, thus giving the notion of trolling or vandalism. She started dabbling in userboxes at 16:05, 57 minutes later.

In her first edit to her user page at 16:07, and in this first edit she added a box stating she was an administrator. (and a cute "merow" statement) At 21:36, after 5 hours 29 minutes, Sean Black removed it, with the summary "You are not an admin". Two minutes later - having begun editing or left the page before Sean did it - WAvegetarian informed her that it's not good for her to have that box. At 21:44, she responded to him saying "ok sorry :( removed" and "I doubt I could become an admin since it seems a bit biased towards those who spend nearly ALL THEIR LIFE on wikipedia but who knows, probably not even worth a try though, no?" Time elapsed: 7h25m.

She makes some legitimate edits (in fact, apart from the Derry stuff, all her mainspace edits that I've seen so far seem legitimate), then mentions her new World Citizen userbox on a hundred or so user talk pages. The few responses are all positive.

At 21:47, 3 minutes after her initial response on her talk page, she replies to Sean Black with "You could've at least had the common courtesy to let me do it myself, but the grumpy/oppositional tone "YOU ARE NOT AN ADMIN." suggests doesn't exactly give the impression that you have any, anyway."

7 minutes later, Sean responded apologizing for what could have been seen as a grumpy tone.

Now, before all of this, she had received several vandalism warnings, presumably (I could go through again and check) due to her Derry/Londonderry edits. While I think they should have explained to her the situation, it kind of already was in the comments on Derry. But still, they should have pointed her the way, they were biting a newbie.

MSK, the way I see it, got involved in a fight without reading up on it - forgiveable, as there can be lots and difficult to find documentation on such things. And they bit the newbie by not explaining this to her. However, when she deleted the comment explaining it, that was a bit far. Claiming she was an admin was a poor choice, and Sean did nothing wrong in removing it, and she decided - within 8 hours of joining - that apparently all admins are shutins who have a clique. Either she wasn't a newbie, or she easily resorts to insults. Based on her history since then it just seems like she hunts for fight, but I could be mistaken based on a small sample size.

If MSK truly wishes to contribute - and I do see many legitimate edits - perhaps she should come in with a new name. After all, even NoPuzzleStranger and Gzornenplatz were tolerated until they started exhibiting tell-tale signs of being Wik, which were not positive traits. If it's possible to spend a few months being a good quiet user, then pop up and say "Hi, I'm MSK, I decided to try a new beginning," I'm sure that they would welcome you with open arms. I certainly would. --Golbez 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very well put. Thank you, Golbez. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• See also User:Tony_Sidaway/Blocks_on_Mistress_Selina_Kyle --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  This makes me feel guilty.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  It shouldn't, Sean. If you look even further back in her history, you'll see that I tried very nicely to get her to remove that template and got nowhere. Chick Bowen 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby breaking parole with impunity

I wish to bring to your attention the recent activities of KDRGibby, who I'm sure you'll remember from this ArbCom case. Since the closure of his case (which resulted in him being put on parole and probation for personal attacks), Gibby has made the following comments on the talk pages of articles on my watchlist. Keep in mind that I have not covered all his contributions; many more personal attacks could exist. What I find amazing is that no admin has yet taken it upon himself to enforce the ArbCom decision and block Gibby (I believe the maximum punishment is in order for such blatant disregard not only for the community, but also for the ArbCom itself):

• [11] "Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please."
• [12] "the complaint is actually...stupid"
• [13] "The neutrality complaint is stupid. [...] Nikodemos is simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade."
• [14] "Ironically you make the same sophomoric arguement that you complain about. Free markets are only an impossibility if you don't understand what the word means."
• [15] "I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material."
• [16] "You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE!"
• [17] "This is the problem with people like you. [...] Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions."
• Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: [18] (added "only because citing free market economists is obviously pov" in a NPOV tag).
• [19] "There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule!"
• [20] "ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit!"
• [21] "Nati, you are making up crap again. You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of."
• Refusing to keep a NPOV tag on a disputed article: [22] "the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV."
• [23] "Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing."
• [24] "Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods."
• [25] "Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS." (referring to the actions of a number of users)
• [26] "If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you."

Collected by Nikodemos 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

This is from my talk page. Parole is enforced by administrators. Fred Bauder 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

KDRGibby was blocked for supposed violations of his personal attacks parole. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. His comments may have been angry, but, if they're in response to someone removing sourced edits without explanation, to a certain extent justified. If he's blocked, at least the people deleting valid info should be too. Please review this block.- Mgm|^(talk) 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Personal attacks are personal attacks, and KDRGibby knows full well what making personal attacks will cost him. To quote WP:NPA, "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors." Incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Then could you explain exactly what part of his edit was a personal attack. All I see is anger, but as far as I know that's not a blockable offense. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that when KDRGibby says, "You lefties are so gd amazing!" he's not referring to his fondness for southpaws. Lumping his opponents together using a term clearly meant to be pejorative, all wrapped up in a number of comments that certainly fall outside the bounds of civility, is a personal attack—and moreover is something that someone who knows he is on an attack parole should know not to do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, we don't block for "removing sourced edits without explanation". If an editor has violated WP:3RR, please feel free to list that at WP:AN/3RR. Jkelly 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We should. Why wait for an edit war if it can be nipped in the but my simply requiring an explanation? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You might then propose a policy change. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That was only one edit among 20 others — see the top of this page - see header 2 of this page. He's started similar behaviour again, after his block. Can someone please review his edits. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to investigate Gibby's most recent behavior, since the expiry of the block instituted by Tom Harrison 22:23 on March 1. Since it expired he has made an incredible 60 edits,

Firstly looking at his edit summaries alone I see:

• "the nuetrality dispute is because the leftists won't allow factual cited criticism to be present. stop abusing wiki rules for political purposes.)"
• "that is not a legitimate reason to revert the text. You will do anythign to keep outstuff you don't like won't you. The other editors deletion excuse was it need sp corrects. I say fix it then"
• "sorry you deleted cited credible material again, this is bordering on vandalism..."

In the arbitration case, it was found that KDRGibby has said things like (names etc removed):

• "X is an immature communist brat from P who keeps deleting this and my other sections from Wiki, she has violated the 3rev policies multiple times and gets away with. Has no logical arguementation skills, and no ability to defend her deltions.
• "Y you are an Fing MORON! You delete Hayek's interpretation as PROPOGANDA? What BS"
• "rules mean nothing here, fuck the wikis the little bastards can't follow their own rules, and dont edit my own discussion page."

and that these were personal attacks. Okay maybe the edit summaries weren't in quite the same category. Accusing people of abusing the rules, activities bordering on vandalism, and being willing to "do anythign to keep outstuff you don't like" may all be legitimate criticisms, though the edit summary is hardly an appropriate place to make them.

Of those recent edit summaries, only calling someone a leftist could possibly be interpreted as an attack. What he said before his arbcom case is not relevant to a block one places now.

While he was blocked, KDRGibby said this on his talk page:

• "I try civility, but its very hard when dealing with so many moronic logically inconsistant editors and biased lazy administrators who only follow the rules to suite their political prefrences against users they ideologically disagree with." [27]

Well that's a personal attack but it's a fairly diffuse one. The "moronic logically inconsistant editors and biased lazy administrators who only follow the rules to suite their political prefrences against users they ideologically disagree with" aren't actually named (though we could infer). And in any case it could be a legitimate complaint (has he filed an RfC?)

So let's see what else he's been up to:

Since being unblocked he has said:

• "Oh and comparing classical liberals to "elitist republicans" not only shows your own bias, but extreme ignorance!!! They are nothing alike! Not to mention you have no citation for your little original research. Your entire edit is predicated on your own original research while erasing the publicated cited researched sources that say things you disagree with. YOU HAVE TO DO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS! (Gibby 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC))" [28]
  • Pretty angry stuff. And very strong criticism. But not perhaps in the realm of personal attack. Just not polite.
• "I'm not calling you a vandal, i'm calling you a left wing censor." [29]

But the sheer weight of these edits must be crippling to dialog. He is permanently angry and he had made 60 edits to just 10 or so articles and their talk pages. The Committee found that he "consistently fails to assume good faith" and this seems to be what is at the bottom of his disruptive behavior.

While I don't think another block is necessarily merited (he's angry as hell, but not as bad as he has been), his behavior still falls far below an acceptable level and if it continues he *will* be repeatedly blocked for personal attacks. I do think this problem editor's activities on the following articles, amongst others, should be monitored, and if necessary we should consider banning him from those that he disrupts:

• Altruistic Economics, Classical liberalism, Economic progressivism, Fair trade

In the arbitration case, it was found that he had engaged in tendentious editing, edit warring, removal of large blocks of information, and acting immaturely (WP:POINT was cited). Remedies include an impressive array of probations for disruption. It would probably be a kind act to ban him from editing articles that obviously cause him great mental anguish, rather than letting him continue to get angrier and angrier until he lashes out again. --Tony Sidaway 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gibby has continued his behaviour and aggressive revert warring. Any action going to be taken? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

A number of administrators are now trying to modify this editor's bad behavior. If he acts badly, he gets a very brief block (a few hours at most) and a note explaining precisely why he has been blocked. We can hope that he will quickly learn to stop doing the things that cause him to be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He was just blocked a couple of minutes ago for three hours. I subsequently protected his userpage (warning removal vandalism), afterwhich he attacked me in email. I told him I wouldn't tolerate another outburst, because, and I believe strongly that, most of us want to see him become a conducive editor, and I was trying to be fair. I haven't listed the page on WP:PP (useless, since it's only three hours), though. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:03 UTC (2006-03-07)

User:Danny L possibly defamation

Looks like this userpage is used just to insult somebody. Lapinmies 22:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I must be a bit slow, but what? El_C 23:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Learn to use page history you dumb fuck. Lapinmies 10:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• No need to call someone a "dumb fuck". You could just have said that someone included <insult> which can be found in the history. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It was the newest revision when I posted the message, somebody just blanked the site and after that it was history. I don't think I have to guide admins in basic functions of wikipedia. Lapinmies 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not refer to someone as a "dumb fuck" again. That's completely unacceptable.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Karmafist petitioning new users again

It seems that Karmafist (talk · contribs) has resumed his old practice of including his combative views on WikiPolitics in his welcomes to new users [30] [31] [32], despite repeated requests to stop doing so by multiple users (see e.g. User_talk:Karmafist#Petitioning newbies).

While I understand that Karmafist believes that this is the only way to fix Wikipedia's ills, in my opinion this will serve to poison WikiPolitics further and give newbies the wrong idea of what we're about. It is a severe violation of WP:BITE and will undermine our core mission of building an encyclopedia. Action is necessary, regrettable though it may be, to encourage him to stop.

I propose to warn Karmafist to cease and desist, followed by a short block for disruption and newbie biting if he continues. This is the least drastic course of action I can think of. What do other people think? -- SCZenz 23:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist, as I already said (perhaps you missed my small text), I don't think it's appropriate to present the petition to newcomers because it's a bit overwhelming and they should probably be given time to orient themsleves around the wiki first. El_C 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lots of people have told him not to do that. Now he's forging ahead anyway, and I'm asking what we should do if he won't stop. -- SCZenz 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a good disruption block will do if this keeps going on, or maybe Arbcom could settle this and other issues.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll cross my fingers that he's stopped. I see this as a clear problem. I don't know what else can be done if he keeps it up. Aaaaarg. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold to say this, I believe I'm one of those few he trusts more. I'm willing to do all the talking (and subsequent blocking), I don't think anyone else should. It just gives him the idea that the cabal is indeed against him, and would surely make his manifesto stronger if smart newbies realise that they won't get much of a say, cos let's face it, what with the recent userboxes, there cearly is a group of admins that would band together and do the same things. I'll drop a note on his talk page warning him. I feel I'm most suited for dealing with him. If there are objections to this, please go ahead and voice them. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:57 UTC (2006-03-03)

If you think you can stop him that'd be best, but if he keeps it up he'll know he's doing it in the face of uniform disapproval. Speaking for myself it's just wrong, wrong enough for a short block. Rx StrangeLove 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• While I disagree with his newbie welcome message, and he knows that the community in general disagrees with it too (it was brought up by many during his recent RfA), I'm not sure I concur that it's enough of an offence to warrant a block. I can't quite see it breaking any current policies per se. Has an RfC been tried yet? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't enough to warrant a block, but i'm sure a cabalist will do it anyway. Give me another way, or get out of my way. Karmafist 02:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another way... to do what, exactly? android79 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This has to be better defined. Does the "other way" intimate exposure to the petition? If so, to what extent? Where? How? El_C 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist means another way to get support for his petition—see his comments at User_talk:SCZenz#My petition. Also, I rather strongly object to the concept of negotiating on this point in some manner. There is community consensus, as I see it, that this is damaging to Wikipedia. I'm not sure, for example, what an RfC would accomplish if he's set on ignoring the thoughtful requests users have already made. So, for those who are opposed to a block, what realistically do we do? -- SCZenz 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that this is all about a petition is key here. The very concept of a petition is to gather consensus in a structured form. The fact that he's doing a petition suggests that Karmafist has not forgotten about consensus, nor has he stopped caring about it. That's why I think an RfC might work. Once he sees that those disagreeing with his actions isn't a shadowy and mysterious "cabal" but the very heart of the Wikipedia community he cares about... reason will prevail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the opposition isn't shadowy or mysterious, there's been consistent disagreement to this everywhere it's been discussed. It's clear he's acting against the communities approval. I don't see why we should have to jump through another, larger hoop to get him to stop. If Karmafist is interested in consensus he'd respect it and stop. And in any case, gathering a bunch of signatures on a petition, many of which are from new users who don't have the background to make an informed decision, is not consensus making. It's a petition. I'll certainly consider blocking if he starts again. Rx StrangeLove 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not RfC the petition, instead of Karmafist? I feel like I already know what the latter would look like, and let's not do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No matter the target, it will probably have the same ugly result. android79 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contemplating a block is premature at this point, but the immediacy in tone of the "another way" is not constructive, either. At ease. El_C 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that he did this a couple of weeks ago, was asked to stop, and stopped temporarily—only to continue again? -- SCZenz 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dragging newbies into politics is despicable and inexcusable. I would certainly consider a block if he continues. — Dan | talk 03:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries then, he's stopped. ... he'll start again in a another week or two so once more we can say "stop, and if you don't stop we'll tell you to stop again."--Gmaxwell 04:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a violation of WP:BITE, which has to do with responding aggressively (or overly sternly) to newbie mistakes. I'm really sick of people misquoting policies. Calling this "biting the newbies" is like saying:

• "I get to rewrite policy pages to say that I'm the king, because I'm supposed to be bold."
• "I'm allowed to ignore bans and circumvent blocks, because I'm supposed to ignore all rules."
• "Anyone who dislikes my edits and says so should be banned, because they're not allowed to make personal attacks."

These are all well-known abusive tactics here. Accusing Karmafist of violating WP:BITE when he communicates his views in a friendly way to newbies is the same sort of abusive argumentation. It's either a serious misunderstanding of policy, or a deliberate twisting thereof.

That said, there is a legitimate concern that newbies may believe that Karmafist is speaking for Wikipedia as a whole. People tend to assume (however wrongly) that form letters represent some sort of official recognition. (This thought may come from the same underlying error as "It must be true, it's in the newspaper" but it is still common.)

Out of respect for the independence of editors who don't agree with his positions, Karmafist might consider revising his form letter to explain what he's about ... and that he doesn't purport to represent a known majority. --FOo 04:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying it violates WP:BITE perhaps goes to far, but perhaps it's not. He's setting up these users to be bitten by thrusting them into his personal battle before they've learned enough about the community to avoid trouble. So while he may not be biting them himself, I think the end result will be the same. It is very important the a users early interaction with the community is positive and cooperative, if it's any other way it will taint their entire involvement with the project. --Gmaxwell 05:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent. Don't involve anyone in this whole mess of conflicts that doesn't need to be involved. let new people write articles and enjoy wikipedia. It is after all, an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 06:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This may not be "letter of the law" WP:BITE, but it's newbie-abuse of a fairly clear and unfortunate sort, and distinctly in the scope of WP:POINT. I find the sheer scale of some of this mass-welcoming probematic in itself: if it were desirable to emulate a welcome-bot, we'd just have implemented a welcome-bot, not left welcoming to be done on an individual basis. Alai 06:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and to be fair, WP:BITE isn't the only objection people have been citing. Rx StrangeLove 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I like Karmafist a lot, and don't think this constitutes newbie-biting at all, but it must be a bit unnerving for a brand new user to be asked to sign a statement saying "I am a Wikipedian. I believe wholeheartedly in the ultimate goal of Wikipedia set forth by its founder, Jimbo Wales"!! Babajobu 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

...and then being asked to favor a manifesto which he has not endorsed and which is regarded as unworkable by many Wikipedians. Yes, that's a good idea all right! Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just can't shake the feeling this is too much like the Catholic Alliance flap. There, you had a group of people using catagories associated with userboxes to try and reach people to influence consensus in a massive way, here you have someone using...whatever method Karamafist uses to identify new editors...to try and reach people to influence consensus through his manifesto. I just don't feel like userspace is the place to be campaigning for anything. Maybe it belongs in projectspace, or as a proposed guideline somewhere (where it'd probably die a quick death under MfD, but there you go). Course...I could just be bitter because I never got welcomed by anyone.  ;) InkSplotch^(talk) 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've told Karmafist precisely what it is about the content of his welcoming message that I find worrying. I've asked him to consider stopping, or else use the standard message. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:-Ril-

-Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked again as a sock of CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by Michael_Snow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). This happened before and I believe ArbCom rejected the allegation: [33]. I am not going to get into a wheel war with another admin, especially since I think -Ril- has hardly made a great impression lately, but I have had an email from -Ril- protesting innocence and I am inclined to take it at face value. Just zis Guy you know? 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, I didn't reject it. I was merely bowing to the superior experience of my colleagues to CheeseDreams. I am still personally of the opinion that -Ril- may well be a sockpuppet of CD. All the evidence is circumstantial, but it all adds up to a fairly convincing picture. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there are several points to add here. One is that the Arbitration Committee rejected the case, not the allegation itself. Another is that there really wasn't any evidence to exonerate -Ril-, and the arguments that the two might be different people are extremely vague. If some people were unconvinced, I'd say they either haven't carefully studied the behavior of both accounts, or they are perhaps mistaking changes in tone for changes in character. There's also the additional evidence pointed out in the section above.

Finally, I've already discussed this issue with -Ril- personally. I think it's quite telling that through all this, and even in the face of direct questions, -Ril- still has not given anything more than a non-denial. --Michael Snow 23:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

CheeseDreams made a big impression on me. I doubt very much that -Ril- is connected with him. Fred Bauder 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A number of us are quite convinced, based on the extent to which -Ril- and CheeseDreams share editing interests, opinions, tactics, and stylistic quirks. If there is reason for doubt, we'd like very much to know what those reasons are. --Michael Snow 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any block of -Ril- or any other user based on suspicion alone. Unless a user is engaged in repeated, blatant vandalism, an indefinite block should require more than just one admin's feelings. If Michael has strong evidence, he should take it to Arbcom. Wasn't that already done, and rejected before, though? In my opinion, -Ril- should be unblocked until and unless a much more convincing case is presented. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, the only thing the Arbitration Committee rejected was the case, not the evidence. And generally they've responded to requests about reincarnations of banned users by indicating it's not up to them to re-ban them every time it comes up. --Michael Snow 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is supposed to happen to Ril's current arbitration case? This block seems like it's usurping Arbcom's jurisdiction. He should at least have an opportunity to speak in his own defense in the Arbcom case. Users guilty of much worse disruption have been granted that much. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't usurping the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction, it's implementing their ruling in the CheeseDreams case. Dealing with the newly opened case is easy enough, it can be closed with no further action taken. --Michael Snow 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked but I'm not going to wheel war. Secretlondon 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor I, I'll simply have to submit the evidence as part of the newly opened case, so that the Arbitration Committee can actually decide the issue instead of avoiding it. --Michael Snow 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committe rejected the argument itself. Read the Epopt's statement for yourself - here is the entire Arbitration Request. When I emailed him to request being unblocked, Fred Bauder emailed back yesterday confirming that he believes the idea of me being CheeseDreams implausible. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

List of British Jews

Would someone mind sorting out the talkpage? A move vandal stuffed it up as I was writing to the page, and now there's a Talk:List of British Jews with my one comment and Talk:List of British Chews that can't move there. Oh, and can someone block the fool who did it? Grace Note 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Splash got the move sorted while I was blocking the fool. All better now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bah. I blocked the fool, too. My block was shorter, so I've lifted it and reblocked. Juding from User talk:Xizer, the Wiki is better without the usual practises of this particular editor for a while. -Splash^talk 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This particular user has been a headache from early on, when he started spouting racist language all over the place. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI

I do have to say that he is a knowledgable editor and has dedication. However, we have been having some issues lately. This would be an ordinary content dispute; however, SPUI has been uncivil (reverting with no discussion of templates, edit summaries, and various comments to users using profanity and references to body parts). Also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war has placed him on probation, I believe.

Pages affected: (feel free to add others)

• California State Route 1
• Template:Routeboxca2
• Template:Routeboxca
• California State Route 15
• California State Highway 17
• California State Route 283
• I-95 exit list revert war (SPUI replaces the page with a redirect)

Pages with incivil comments:

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 2
• User talk:Nohat
• Talk:California State Highway 17
  • "Oh eat my penis. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A very compelling argument, indeed. Nohat 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"

• Comment "Fix the errors and general bullshit in State Route 15 (California) and Interstate 605 (California) once the 3RR deadline expires" on userpage

Very strange page moves:

• 21:43, February 28, 2006 SPUI m (moved Talk:Highway 17 as the local idiots call it to Talk:Highway 17 (California))

(cur) (last) 21:41, February 28, 2006 SPUI m (moved Talk:California State Highway 17 to Talk:Highway 17 as the local idiots call it)

Really, this is two disputes here: regarding infoboxes and naming. However, the infobox one is involving the remodeling of it, and the naming one has to do with the controversial road naming policy WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that his probation applies to disruption and provocation, not colorful language. I wish SPUI would be more civil; I think we all do. But (absent any diffs) I don't see anything here that's escalated beyond a typical content dispute. Chick Bowen 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not even the arbcom thought a civility/NPA based remedy was a workable proposition... :/ Looks to me at first sight like a content dispute bordering on revert-warring, but then again there's no specific provision about that either. I'll try the "having a quiet word" approach -- someone throw water on me if I return in the form of a charred lump. Alai 06:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: 1) Neither civility nor edit warring were brought before us, and the case dealt with SPUI in a very limited way. The ruling is not at all a tacit approval of his other behaviors. 2) Under probation, he may be banned for disruption of any kind, at the discretion of an administrator. This can very plausibly include either incivility or edit warring, if an administrator deems him to be acting disruptively in that regard. Dmcdevit·t 08:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was in no way suggesting there was any "tacit approval". To clarify myself: my judgement is that his edit-warring and incivility is not particularly disruptive in these cases. But that's a sufficiently open-ended criterion that others must equally decide that for themselves. (Now, his signature I consider pretty WP:POINT-laden, but I don't think I'm entirely uninvolved or neutral on that, so won't be taking any action on it myself.) Alai 19:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the link you gave, WP:NC/NH, which SPUI created, it appears SPUI is acting in good faith, by persuing, consistent, more general resolution to the naming disputes regarding roads throughout the United States. — Mar. 3, '06 [06:14] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The problem is beginning to spread. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to I-95 exit list, yes. The article went to AfD, and no consensus was reached, yet he turned the article into a redirect—repeatedly and four times in twenty-five hours (17:43 4 Mar 2006 to 18:13 5 Mar 2006). His language hasn't been uncivil, but his discussion of the matter has largely been via edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it has. He's also taken to unilateral reverts of Interstate 605 (California) which had previously been agreed apon to keep the CA routebox, and he knows it too.JohnnyBGood 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he's taken his unilateral crusade to California State Route 283. JohnnyBGood 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Would specific page banning be appropriate here? Or revert limitations for road articles? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Might be nice if you thought about the versions rather than blindly reverting. Anyone who thinks the infobox on California State Route 1 is fine should not be making consensus. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He's right about the infobox, it is horribly mangled. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Quit edit warring. SPUI has a point and you need to find a way to compromise. Specific page banning is ridiculous--these are good faith edits. There's no discussion at Talk:California State Route 283 at all! Chick Bowen 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But there are many discussions- at WT:CASH, Talk:California State Route 15, WP:TFD, Template talk:Routeboxca2, Talk:California State Route 1. In these most uphold the routebox. SPUI is acting against consensus here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete or remove the infobox, so SPUI worked on it. The consensus was for improvements as opposed to deletion. I'm not endorsing his particular improvements--I don't really care. But this is absolutely not a situation for admin intervention--you need to work this out with him and with other concerned editors. I'm sure if you found a way to include SPUI's visual improvements without losing any information that everyone would be fine with that. Look, this is a perfectly banal editing dispute; it has nothing to do with the arbcom ruling regarding SPUI, and you are asked to please stop bothering administrators about a non-administrative issue. Chick Bowen 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic's parole

Per an ArbCom ruling, Netoholic is serving a 12-month parole, during which time he "is banned from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces ... and [is] restricted to one revert per page per day."

Late last year, it was believed that there was a developer mandate to eliminate as many meta-templates as possible, and Netoholic volunteered to rewrite them. As he possessed a level of technical expertise and motivation that others lacked, several arbitrators indicated that the terms of his parole should not be enforced to the letter. Instead, admins were to permit productive edits, enforcing the terms only if Netoholic edited in a manner that we deemed "disruptive."

Unfortunately, Netoholic interpreted this as a de facto termination of the parole. He soon began editing (and revert warring on) templates and articles that had nothing to do with the meta-template situation, all the while citing the ArbCom clarification as a license to behave however he pleased. This was largely tolerated (including by me), due to the perceived importance of his work.

Now that we've learned that the great meta-template purge was not developer-mandated or backed by policy, the situation has changed. Nonetheless, Netoholic constantly reminds everyone that the literal terms of his parole remain inapplicable. I'm more than willing to accept that, as I have no desire to block a productive editor on a technicality. The problem is that Netoholic is engaging in precisely the sort of behavior that led to his sanctions in the first place, but he insists that none of his edits rise to the level of "disruption."

Last night (UTC), it came to my attention that Netoholic was revert warring on the article entitled The Amazing Race 9, insisting that the onus was on the other editor to initiate discussion and justify edits contrary to Netoholic's personal preference. This, in my assessment, was disruptive, so I blocked Netoholic for 24 hours. Netoholic protested the block, and I provided a detailed explanation of my rationale on his talk page. As I noted, aside from the fact that Netoholic violated his one-revert restriction (in what I deemed a disruptive manner), any editor can be blocked for repeatedly revert warring, even if the 3RR (which is not an entitlement) isn't violated.

This morning at 4:14 (UTC), Snowspinner announced the following:

"I'm lifting this one. The parole on Netoholic is not to be used to bully him into silence, and I'm very distressed to see it being used for that."

Snowspinner did not address any of my comments on the matter, nor did he make any attempt to contact me or discuss the situation. Instead, he immediately assumed bad faith on my part and "overturned" my decision. I feel that this was extremely inappropriate—not merely because it's a breach of decorum, but mainly because it further undermines all efforts to enforce the spirit of Netoholic's parole (and reinforces his apparent belief that he possesses some sort of immunity).

This is extremely frustrating, as it appeared at one time that Netoholic actually was beginning to reform. I honestly believe that he has the potential to become one of our most valuable contributors. By tolerating his misdeeds, we actively encourage his recidivism, and that's a shame. —David Levy 06:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Individual admins don't have the authority to override Arbcom decisions that they disagree with. This behavior is particularly unbecoming from one of the clerks. I'm at a loss as to why Snowspinner feels the need to defend Netoholic's blatant and repeated violation of the conditions of his probation. This has gone on for way too long. We're not talking about technicalities, but about the exact same behavior patterns that led to the sanctions in the first place. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Important: You are both making a bad argument by repeatedly stating that I am showing the "exact same behavior patterns that led to the sanctions in the first place". Read the Findings of Fact of my case... the only revert warring that was found to be bad was within Templates over the meta-templates -- not articles, not Wikipedia pages, and not even all Templates. The broad 1RR is not what the arbitrators intended. -- Netoholic @ 07:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You violated consensus on the page David blocked you for edit warring. According to Finding of Fact #7, this is one of the forms of misbehavior that led to the prior case. And, whatever the arbitrators "intended", the actual decision does indeed set not only a 1RR, but a blanket ban on editing in certain namespaces: "Netoholic is banned from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day." Given that the offensive behavior continues, and that Netoholic has very few such contributions that do not involve troublemaking or edit warring, I see no reason why this should not be fully enforced. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The clarifications I've gotten from the Arbitrators and even Snowspinner (one of the people who brought my to the ArbCom) is that the broad 1RR and namespace restrictions were not intended (mentorship was the true goal). Raul654, who was assigned as a mentor, has said as much as well. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec)On the face of it, it appears to me that it would have been preferable if a) the 1RR vio had been reported, and enforced by a neutral admin, and not by someone who is, or even could be accused of being, "involved"; and b) the block had not been reversed without prior communication (which is in fact WWing by the definition the arbcom have on at least one occasion used). What to do about it after the fact (other than make such observations), I'm not so sure about. Alai 07:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic has stepped on quite a few toes, and I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect all admins with whom he's ever engaged in a conflict to recuse themselves. If I'd been looking for an excuse to block him, it certainly wouldn't have taken me this long. But in fact, this was something that I've gone out of my way to avoid doing until now. At one point, Netoholic reported another editor's 3RR violation (a valid claim), and I informed him I couldn't block that user without also blocking Netoholic (because he violated his parole by participating in the revert war). He basically requested that I block both of them, but I declined (purely because I didn't want to block Netoholic). —David Levy 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring of any sort=bad.--Alhutch 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a reasonable definition of wheel warring to say that overturning unjust blocks is a wheel war. This isn't even a wheel border skirmish, as I said elsewhere. If David reinstated, and especially if I unblocked again, it would be a wheel war. To cripple the administrator right to overturn each other, however, is to remove a key check on administrator power. Phil Sandifer 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this situation doesn't fit the definition of what typically is referred to as a "wheel war," and I was careful not to allow it to escalate to that point. Irrespective of terminology, however, I believe that Phil's intervention was inappropriate, especially given the fact that he assumed bad faith on my part (without even bothering to contact me or address the lengthy explanations that I'd posted). —David Levy 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Reasonable" is as maybe, but as I say, it's one the arbcom have applied. Alai 16:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that in this particular case Netoholic's edit warring was in clear defiance of consensus. His position was that country flag icons should not be included on The Amazing Race 9. So far, on Talk:The Amazing Race 9, a straw poll has six users in favor of keeping the flags and no one but Netoholic in favor of getting rid of them. This is exactly the behavior that Arbcom found in Finding of Fact #7: "Netoholic consistently tries to push his views through, rather than working with and accepting consensus, using disruption to make a point and revert warring." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In "clear defiance of consensus"? Are you serious? That poll was started after I made my edits. See also Historian's fallacy. -- Netoholic @ 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, my objection to the block is that it is unbecoming of an administrator with a history of conflict with a user to start using their administrative powers to enforce rulings on users, particularly rulings that the arbcom has indicated are in a relatively narrow class where tehy should only be enforced when Netoholic is being disruptive. To treat any time he gets into a revert war as blockable disruption is to construe the ruling, to my mind, very broadly and harshly - something that may be fair, but should be done by someone more uninvolved than I consider David to be. Phil Sandifer 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read the comments in question (linked from Netoholic's talk page), it's clear that the arbitrators created a narrow exception (to enable the template rewrites that were considered very important at that time). I'm more than willing to apply that exception to any productive editing, but revert warring doesn't fit that description. It is disruptive, and an admin doesn't even need an ArbCom ruling to block over this type of behavior pattern.

If the fact that I've engaged in past disputes with Netoholic means that I'm to be branded permanently "involved," I could just as easily argue that you should have found another admin to overrule my block (given the fact that you and I have a history of conflict). —David Levy 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a history of conflict? Huh. Because I honestly have no clue who the hell you are past an awareness that you really dislike Netoholic. Phil Sandifer 16:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your claim that you assumed bad faith on the part of someone you didn't even remember knowing. But for the record, I don't dislike Netoholic. (I dislike some of his behavior.) —David Levy 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Further violations

Snowspinner (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 04:15, March 3, 2006 UTC. Almost immediately he violated his ArbCom ban again–

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

• 06:07, March 3, 2006 — Here he reverts Omegatron (talk · contribs) (reverting back to a previous edit he made).

Template:Ship table

• 06:01, March 3, 2006 — Here he places {{tdeprecated}} on Template:Ship table in violation of his ArbCom ban from the Template namespace.
• 07:16, March 3, 2006 — Here he reverts David Levy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who reverted Netoholic's placement of the {{tdeprecated}} tag, above).
• 08:14, March 3, 2006 — Here he edits David Newton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s section header (by removing it) on the talk page which read ==NOT DEPRECATED==.
• 08:21, March 3, 2006 — Here he places the {{tdeprecated}} tag on the talk page (having had it removed twice from the template itself, see above). Note that for both this edit, and the edit directly above, he used a blank edit summary (those assuming good faith might think he was trying to start a discussion).

Clearly he has no intention of stopping his disruption. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 Hours by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio insertions in Armenian genocide

Various itierations of an IP keep adding copyvio to this article. ARIN whois for one of the IPs They are all in the same range, and the insertions need to stop. This has been going on since 4:10, and the IP's keep changing yet putting the same copyvio in. Article History. Not sure what needs to be done, but something needs to happen here. Warnings to the first ones have only created new ones. Thanks. pschemp | talk 06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is still going on...it has started up again today. pschemp | talk 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(crossposted to WP:VIP)

Are there no admins who are keeping an eye on this article? Jkelly 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! People really shjould be watching controversial articles, especially if they have no dog in whatever fight it is- Neutral editors monitoring these articles can be an enourmous help.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Afshar

User:Afshar has requested a ban for his similarly hotheaded opponent, and is making legal threats. I don't know what the debate is about-- he chose me at random. I dunno, this dispute needs to be cooled down somehow but I've got no experience in mediation. Ashibaka tock 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Afshar and Danko Georgiev MD are just as bad as each other. Now that their argument has tumbled into legal threats and personal attacks, I think the offer is they cool it and start mediation or get blocked. Do you want me to speak to each of them? — Gareth Hughes 16:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like the best solution for now. Thank you-- go ahead and let them know. Ashibaka tock 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've left a message for both of them. Afshar's legal threats were quite strongly worded, so I made it clear that he now has the choice of withdrawing them or being blocked. Both accounts seem to be inactive at the moment, so we'll wait and see. — Gareth Hughes 16:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Routine block evasion by IP 80.90.*.* and User:Rose-mary

The anonymous Phaistos Disc editor 80.90.*.* and his proven sock-puppet Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have developed a pattern of routinely evading blocks by getting a fresh anonymous IP every day. Within the last 2 weeks, I count at least 5 separate instances of 3RR violations, 5 blocks (on different accounts each), and 5 days during which this user has edited evading earlier blocks, including today.

• 14 February: 80.90.37.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 7 reverts on 2 pages within 14 hours, but no block.
• 15 February: 80.90.39.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 5 reverts on 1 page.
  Blocked by User:Woohookitty for 24 hours on 16 February 08:21 (3RR),
• 16 February: block evasion by Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 80.90.39.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), not sanctioned.
• 17 February: 80.90.37.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 February: 80.90.39.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 19 February: 80.90.38.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 20 February: 80.90.38.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), warned for new 3RR by Dbachmann
• 21 February: 80.90.37.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 22 February: 80.90.37.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 23 February: 80.90.37.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24 February: 80.90.37.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 25 February: 80.90.39.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 26 February: 80.90.38.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): New 3RR,
  Blocked by User:William M. Connolley for 24 hours on 26 February 22:11, later extended to 1 week on 27 February (for being a sockpuppet).
• 27 February: block-evasion by Rose-mary (talk · contribs).
  Blocked by User:William M. Connolley for 24 hours on 27 February 22:09 (for same 3RR as on 26 February).
• 27 February: 80.90.38.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), also block-evading.
  Blocked by User:William M. Connolley for 1 week on 27 February 22:10.
• 28 February: 80.90.37.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), evading blocks from 27 February.
  Blocked by User:William M. Connolley for 1 week on 28 February 22:45.
• 1 March: 80.90.38.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). New 3RR.
  Blocked by User:William M. Connolley for 48 hours on 1 March 16:16.
• 2 March: 80.90.39.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), evading block from 1 March, but no sanctions
• 3 March: 80.90.39.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), evading block from 2 March

• Check-user on Rose-mary vs. 80.90.38.185 and 80.90.38.214 was tested positive on 27 February. Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Rose-mary vs. User:80.90.57.154

Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it upon myself to reblock per William's one week block until 6 March, see User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Rose-mary. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My original block of Rose-mary was intended to be 24h. It would have expired by now, but the issue of the socks confuses it; as said above, R-M has routinely evaded the block with a new IP. Advice on what to do would be welcome. William M. Connolley 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. I would suggest letting her sit out another 24h from now to impress that by "block" we mean "no editing" and leave it at that. But I am involved here, and would appreciate uninvolved judgement from others. dab (ᛏ) 17:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that it's time to semiprotect the article. We can't block each and every IP of this range each time this person logs in anew and switches one tick up or down and begins edit warring again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to sprotection, but in principle, we cannot sprotect in every instance where an article is plagued by an anon with ADSL. half-hour rangeblocks should be enough to frustrate anyone. dab (ᛏ) 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think that a large rangeblock would be more disruptive than an sprotect to one article, but that's just me. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

on AOL IPs, maybe. This particular ISP does not have much activity on en:. In any case, sprotection will be for days and weeks, rangeblocks will be in half-hour intervals for as long as Rose-mary keeps reconnecting. But for the moment, sprotection is fine too, go ahead. dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice at it again

Deeceevoice (on probation) is "shouting" with all caps and font size 20 on Urthogie's talk page. Incivility. [34]

Justforasecond 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's antagonising her. - FrancisTyers 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

One word: WOW.

I think we've all had just about enough of this user. Unbelievably uncivil.Gator (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

She may be being antagonized. Altho, telling someone not to post on your talk page is a pretty trollish thing to do. But, I don't see that this incident requires a response. Friday (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of users who do this; she shouldn't be singled out. Monicasdude 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

She's on probation. Ordinarily she wouldn't be blocked for an instance of incivility. Justforasecond 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

deecee definitely needs a few hours to cool off. Ashibaka tock 18:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Don't be ridiculous; he knows not to provoke her by editing her talk page. El_C 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

ridiculous? What do you call users flipping out over posts like this? Lovable eccentrics adding spice to the community? I think it is more than obvious by now that Deeceevoice is here more for the ego games than for the encyclopedia. dab (ᛏ) 08:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a long history to the dispute, but it's always easy to look only at the isolated situation. The article talk page is the place to go. El_C 08:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A better place to see the entire situation is the Arbitration case, which includes the ArbCom's finding of facts and evidence to give the background. Blanking and ignoring good faith messages on your talk page is poor WikiEtiquette. Then posting allcaps, large font angry messages at the person who did so is outright rude. And blockable, given the history. — Matt Crypto 12:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Good faith? Out of all of the admins on Wikipedia, I consider you the poorest choice for handling the case at this time. El_C 12:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You just can't resist making nasty comments and digs at me every time we come across each other, can you El C? Please stick to the discussion at hand, eh? I'm willing to bury the frickin' hatchet. Move on. — Matt Crypto 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from incivilities and assumptions of bad faith, and do follow your own advise and stay on topic. She obviously feels antagonized by you and the attitude you project. I'm not the only one to raise this issue. Thanks. El_C 12:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying, please can we try and avoid the angry exchanges? I'm willing to avoid slamming you whenever I get the chance. I'm just asking for you to do the same. — Matt Crypto 13:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not angry, nor do I find you slamming me when you get the chance and vice versa. I think you need to be more evenhanded with DCV versus those who upset her. I'm sorry if that comes across as confrontational, considering our history. But I do have a history of with her as an editor and and admin that precedes your own (and also precedes the first time I interacted with you). El_C 13:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

guys? dcv. the case at hand. I tend to think that it is a luxury to keep problem users who need specially trained empathic mentors following their steps to keep them from getting into shouting matches at every corner. WP:ENC and all that. I admire your sympathetic approach, El C, but this user is not on probation for no reason. As long as you can keep her stable, fine, but if she starts jumping at people's throats again, short blocks are in order.

Hunley vandal (South Carolina)

The CSS H. L. Hunley article has been repeatedly vandalized by someone (and I assume it is the same person) using anon IP addresses registered to the State of South Carolina. For example, yesterday there was an attack from 207.232.187.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); that user is blocked so today the attack came from 167.7.248.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which has had numerous short-term blocks but is open today. There have also been identical patterned attacks from 24.241.112.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 24.125.166.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and I'll bet those are ISPs in South Carolina as well. The attacks from state IPs come during lunch hour and the attacks from private ISPs come at night. Regarding the attacks from the SC State websites, User talk:167.7.248.212 threatens that vandalism will be reported to the state. Can someone follow through on this threat, please? If this is a student or a state employee misusing official computers on lunch break maybe we can stem the tide at the source. Thatcher131 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Further request for Arbcom enforcement

User:Anderson12 appears to be a sock puppet of Basil Rathbone who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Lightbringer for trolling on Freemasonry, request that the arbcom ruling [[[here] be enforced to stop disruption of the article.ALR 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This dispute is a prime example of "a plauge on both of your houses." You deserve Lightbringer, and he deserves you. Please consider working with editors you disagree with as opposed to agressively edit warring against them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So you'd agree that Anderson12 bears all the characteristics of being Lightbringer then?ALR 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

CU seems to confirm the edit pattern so I've blocked A12 William M. Connolley 11:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

68.179.175.185

I've blocked 68.179.175.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a month for violating WP:LEGAL on at least three occasions [35] [36] [37]. Although it's an IP it appears to be fairly stable - the same vandal was 68.179.173.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for three months until mid-Feb, so it looks like a slow-turnover lease on an ADSL line - so I think the risk of collateral damage is pretty low. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Carie

Could someone look into User Carie, who added personal and libelous information on Jessica onto TML1988's page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TML1988&oldid=39756977

Thanks. Jane8888 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Looks to be an isolated incident, albeit an odd one. --InShaneee 23:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is a big deal - I've already reverted that edit and warned Carie several weeks ago, and Carie has not reinstated that edit since. --TML1988 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep

This administrator has removed an included category from a series of templates (at least 53) with the apparent intention of emptying those categories of the user pages they contained. In doing so for the second time, he reverted the actions of another administrator, User:Guanaco, attempting to correct this out-of-policy edit en masse. He has also engaged in en masse edits of user pages without the owners' consent to subst-ing templates with the apparent intent to delete the templates without anyone knowing. He has already attempted to abuse CSD-C1 by using this very mechanism to empty a category, then list it for speedy deletion as empty.

The behaviour is at least disruptive, as it interferes with intentional large-scale action of other Wikipedians, most of whom do not know their user pages have been dropped from these categories. As the actions are a form of blanking to undo the intent of the hundreds of original participants, it borders on— and perhaps crosses into— vandalism.

Regardless of how certain administrators may feel about userboxes, or those using categories, the above-listed actions are entirely unsuported by policy, and clearly contrary to the express will of a significant part of the community. The clear administrative duty in this case is to restore the status quo ante, and to prevent a repeat.

I ask that the following templates be restored en masse to their previous state, that MarkSweep and any others subsequently found be barred from further such actions by whatever means necessary.

Template:User freemason	Template:User Bayesian	Template:User Elitist	Template:User modelun
Template:User notchav	Template:SAGE-AU	Template:User libertarian socialist	Template:User Deaf
Template:User childless	Template:User RPCV	Template:User Hattrick	Template:User Catan
Template:User sjsu	Template:User Starcraft	Template:User Skidmore	Template:User ITV1
Template:User deviantART	Template:User libertarian socialist2	Template:User utilitarian	Template:User synaesthesia
Template:User AfD	Template:User powerbookg4tiger	Template:User Birthday2	Template:User nocturnal
Template:User MLB-Mets	Template:User marxist	Template:User world	Template:User Social Democrat
Template:User moderate	Template:User Socialist2	Template:User Trot	Template:User green
Template:User liberty	Template:User Confusedbypolitics	Template:User Christian democrat	Template:User conservative
Template:User Anarchosyndicalist	Template:User ownideal	Template:User independent	Template:User Anarchist
Template:User cynic	Template:User Environmentalist	Template:User apolitical	Template:User AI
Template:User America fan	Template:User Economic Liberal	Template:User Communist	Template:User Socialist
Template:User Catholic Worker	Template:User Rate Your Music	Template:User narutofan	Template:User yes.com
Template:User sxe

StrangerInParadise 23:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The above damaged templates were fixed by Guanaco, who was briefly blocked for doing his job. MarkSweep remains blocked, but just before, he managed to damage these templates as well.

Template:User nocturnal	Template:User yes.com	Template:User Rate Your Music
Template:User Chinese reunification	Template:User UN

Will an admin step forward to uphold policy and revert this damage, or has the fear of doing one's job been successfully instilled?

StrangerInParadise 08:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep has struck again, removing categories from these templates,

Template:User creationist	Template:User evolution	Template:User cannabis	Template:User pope
Template:User humanist	Template:User fsm2	Template:User fsm	Template:User spiritual humanist
Template:User eastortho	Template:User lennonist

This has been cleaned up by User:AdamJacobMuller. I ask, how many times does this has to happen before MarkSweep is significatly blocked? Why must non-admins step up to undo the damage of admins?

StrangerInParadise 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Placing this before anyone else's comments for an obvious reason. User:MarkSweep also blanked Template:user review (which is the one 'User has an account on Wikipedia Review') [38]. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this here? Surely an RfC is warranted? This isn't the proper place to call for someone's head. This braying for blood is distasteful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackensen (talk • contribs) 2006-03-03 19:19:19 (UTC)

I have not called for anyone's head (please no temptations just now). This is an existing situation, with a specific request for action, in the correct venue. I have provided such background as is necessary to understand the context of the situation. But, since you raise the point, the egregious breach of policy here described is highly distasteful. StrangerInParadise 00:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories of Wikipedians by POV are evil and must die. David | Talk 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not evil. Wikipedia user pages are about users. Users are POV. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with these userboxes. File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

David, I am really sick of you saying things like this. Can you please try to be civil and respect that other people actually have differing opinions? THere is no reason to use terms "evil" and "must die" in reference to any discussion on Wikipedia. ... aa:talk 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Please note that neither AN/ ANI are appropriate places for dispute resolution; what are you seeking to gain by this post? If you are seeking other users' input, dispute resolution would be more appropriate. Also note that no one here should simply go reverting back anyone else's contributions now; that would simply escalate this dispute and aggravate the situation. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have asked for specific action, I ask that the following templates be restored en masse to their previous state, that MarkSweep and any others subsequently found be barred from further such actions by whatever means necessary. This is the appropriate venue for this alert, and the request for action is also appropriate- MarkSweep's edits were clearly out-of-order and disruptive. This would require of an admin only a few minutes to correct, but it would require me many, whilst opening me (wrongly) to charges of edit-warring. Isn't this better?

Finally, with respect to Dbiv's comment, I hope he wasn't suggesting that this opinion about categories of Wikipedians should override a clear duty to correct an act of mass disruption. Isn't failing to end disruption of Wikipedia to make a point also a violation of WP:POINT? StrangerInParadise 00:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not WP:POINT. MarkSweep is doing something he thinks should be done; and it may become policy. However, it would be gracious of him (at the least) to abstain from acting any further in this matter. If it really needs to be done, someone else will do it. He is being far more divisive than the userboxes he dislikes have yet been. I would find any redlinks in the table above particularly regrettable. Septentrionalis 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that categories of Wikipedians by POV are fundamentally destructive and so inimical to the concept of Wikipedia that they must die. I do not care which process is used so long as they die. David | Talk 11:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether MarkSweep thinks it should be done is irrelevant, and certainly doesn't separate his acts from any number of disruptive actions- the perpetrators of which all think they "should be done". The speculation- far from certain- that some ban on userboxes will be ratified by the community obviates neither the need to enforce current policy nor the need to respect the community. MarkSweep's acts are certainly WP:POINT, though I was talking about the hypothetical refusal of admins to check and revert his actions. StrangerInParadise 01:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have rolled all of MarkSweep's edits to those templates back. —Guanaco 04:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Guanaco, that was enormously inappropriate. Rollback is for clear cases of vandalism or self-reverts. This kind of mass reversion is hostile and rude to say the least, and not the way to deal with good faith boldness: consensus is. This isn't the first time your misuse of rollback has been brought up. I'm becoming increasingly irritated by your pattern of disruption with regard to userboxes and policies concering them. Let me stress to everyone involved to act slowly and communicate, and always seek consensus. Doing otherwise, especially with the use of admin tools, serves only to inflame the situation, and does us no good. Dmcdevit·t 05:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that they were hostile and rude. Mark's actions could possibly destroy any consensus (we all do remember what this word means, yes?) on the userbox policy we're working so hard to adopt. I'm inclined to pull out of it immediately. Guanaco appears to be trying to "keep the peace" and to force things to go through process. The above description of what happened is accurage. Mark, please, chill out until we reach some kind of agreement. There's no reason to "go nuclear" on things right now. ... aa:talk 06:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't my point at all. Using the administrative rollback in a non-vandalism situation is hostile and uncalled-for. Especially in an attempt to "keep the peace". Dmcdevit·t 06:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a clear case of blanking vandalism: MarkSweep's actions deliberately dismantled mechanisms which disrupted the activities of hundreds of users, against their wishes, for no better reason than he did not approve. This is not to mention his subst-ing campaign on user pages, which effectively sought to hide his attempts to delete the underlying templates. How can you possibly call Guanaco's actions hostile, rude and uncalled-for in the face of MarkSweep's actions?! Guanaco rolled the templates back to the state prior to the disruption. Three months ago, no admin would have thought twice about it. The real question is, Dmcdevit, why didn't you as an admin step up and do the rollback yourself? Are you only an admin to fight destruction you dislike? Would you let blanking stand on articles you happen dislike? This userboxenkampf is showing just how weak administrative commitment to policy has become. StrangerInParadise 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think Guanaco was wrong in using administrative rollback. It was vandalism as blanking, it cannot be said to be in good faith (following the countless RFCs on the matter), and he was wrong to have blanked them. Throwing my voice in support of Guan's actions. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:15 UTC (2006-03-04)

I too agree that Guanaco's reversions were reasonable. The one-click rollback is a handy tool, not a big deal. Undoing someone else's rash, controversial action when you disagree with it is generally OK. Friday (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, hold off on the dramatics for a bit, step back and consider this. Let's just say that Mark Sweep was hugely disruptive and even acting in bad faith. This is a controversial dispute, causing lots of hurt and ill feelings. Now consider the rollback: impersonal, and even implying that the rollbacker has determined bad faith. It seems likely only to further escalate, even if it was a disruptive edit. When a normal revert with an edit summary saying why would have accomplished the same, and not run that risk. I think the use of rollback was ill-considered, and that shouldn't be too controversial to say. I do, by the way, think the 12 hour cool down is probably for the best, for both parties. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I am looking for someone to lift EvilPhoenix's 12-Hour block of Guanaco. I've left a note on his talk page, but he has left a note claiming to be incommunicado, so no one should feel he has to be consulted before lifting the block. This is the second admin for whom I have had to arrange bail, simply because he did his job, see Babajobu's block. StrangerInParadise 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the rush with unblocking? Everyone needs to take a step back and take a breather, regardless of whether one has done "right" or "wrong" here. Actions which are generating pages and pages of text mean that there is something not adequately addressed. Maybe it's about time we took some time aside to think and listen. --HappyCamper 07:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rush with unblocking? The rush was the blocking in the first place; undoing it is not unreasonable. We can discuss this like civilized editors without having to resort to blocks. I have unblocked. Friday (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There was no need for the block(s) in the first place - it just made a tense situation worse. I support the unblock. On the other hand, MarkSweep's block, IMO, was rightly applied (although for the wrong reason, reason given was edit warring), and should be left in place. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:39 UTC (2006-03-04)

Well, I didn't have the context comment really. If that's what its best, then let it be. --HappyCamper 07:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase, this is disgraceful. Somewhere along the line, a lot of Wikipedians lost their respect for collaboration and each other. I said before, to no avail: "Let me stress to everyone involved to act slowly and communicate, and always seek consensus. Doing otherwise, especially with the use of admin tools, serves only to inflame the situation, and does us no good." If we have learned anything from the pedophila wheel war, it's use caution, communicate, and find consensus, especially when reversing another admin's action. That goes for both Mark Sweep and Guanaco, and Friday and Evilphoenix and NSLE as well. We make people admins for a reason, and give them discretion in situations like this to exercise that power. There is no excuse for not discussing a reversal beforehand. Everybody needs to slow down and Discuss. And take your fingers off those buttons. All of these actions are displays of disrespect toward other administrators. Please keep WP:AGF in mind at all times, and never forget the goodness of a real personal message to a talk page, or even a request for mediation, in place of an incident report. This has nothing to do with the individual merits of any of the admin actions, but for crying out loud, discuss it first. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If undoing a wrongful block is disgraceful, I'll take disgrace. I don't see that I have disrespected anyone. I'm all in favor of slowing down and discussing, I just feel that Guanaco shouldn't be locked out of that disscussion. Friday (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We are beyond that, Dmcdevit. Either policy is to be upheld, or not. How can you pretend that admins upholding policy are somehow on the same level with the vandals they are fighting, and those who support them? This was not a legitimate use of discretion by MarkSweep (mass blanking) or Evilphoenix (blocking and refusing communication). You do great harm by pretending there are two equal sides to this conflict— that is disgraceful. StrangerInParadise 08:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call editors in good standing vandals. You've done that twice in this section. Whatever the merits of this incident (and I respect all the opinions above) that's a personal attack and not civil. There's just no need for it, it just makes things worse. Rx StrangeLove 16:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, MarkSweep was not in good standing at the time of my comment, he was blocked for mass blanking. Explain to me how mass blanking out-of-policy is not vandalism. StrangerInParadise 17:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I warned all of you about Guanaco when his latest RfA came up that he is a loose cannon, but you wouldn't listen to me, and this is the result. Guanaco has lost his adminship once before, he should not have been trusted with the keys again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A little bit late to the discussion here, but I'd like to echo Dmcdevit's words that we act with prudence, caution, and with great respect for one another. Remember that we all are humans; we're all volunteers; we're all dedicated to this great project. If we should choose to act, act with the greatest assumption of good faith for each other, with the most civility as possible, and with the most wisdom as possible. I'm not going to comment on this specific situation (as I haven't reviewed everything fully), but I would like to point out that mass revertings of anything but blatant, clear-cut vandalism without general support usually does nothing but aggravate the situation further. Discussion never hurts, as communication is vital. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I blocked because I saw an edit war in progress. If Guanaco was in the right and had consensus behind him, he should have asked someone else to make the reversion, intead of getting involved in an edit war. Edit warring = bad. 2. My Talk page message that was referred to was unclear. My apologies. I'm not refusing to communicate, I just happened to go to bed right after the block and therefore wasn't available to discuss it. 2a. But I'm also not watching AN/I. I refuse to. I'm disgusted lately. I came here because I involved myself in this one, so I felt I should at least see what was said. 3. Here's what I think a wheel war is: If an Admin A takes an Administrative action, Admin B reverts it, and Admin A undoes the reversion. A->B->A. If an Admin simply undoes another Admin's actions, I don't think that is itself a Wheel War. It's polite not to undo something without discussing it, or at least attempting to, but let's please all remember that Admins can revert each other for a reason. What courtesy dictates that we do is to not revert if we're reverted...If someone undoes my Admin action, it's wrong of me to re-do my action, and I have a real problem with anyone who does that. That is a wheel war, and that is what we need to be fighting against. But I don't think it's a wheel war if someone simply undoes a block or a protection or whatever. I don't think it's a wheel war if Admin A blocks, B unblocks, C blocks, and D unblocks. That's not a good situation, but it's not a wheel war. It's when you get into not respecting your fellow Admins enough to re-do something you've been reverted on that we get into problems. Wheel warring = bad. 4. We all need to remember the things that are important and worth fighting for. NPOV. Verifiability. Accuracy. Consensus. Avoiding edit wars...realizing that sometimes, your edits will get reverted, right or wrong, and sometimes, your Admin actions will get reverted, right or wrong, and that's ok. What's not ok is stubbornly insisting on your edit choice without deliberation, or stubbornly insisting on your Admin actions if you're reverted. I hope this makes sense y'all, because this is getting insane. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed, and no consensus has been reached. MarkSweep clearly is not interested in consensus. I assumed good faith at first, but that assumption becomes increasingly difficult to maintain as he makes blatantly destructive edits and refuses to respond to complaints and RFCs.

This was not a wheel war; I would have reverted his edits manually if necessary. —Guanaco 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire situation is ridiculious this is quite frankly, as I have already mentioned on Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll, based on the names and types of templates that are being removed (subst'ed) from my page that there is a clear bias going on against certian types of viewpoints. This is clearly censorship. I would like to congragulate Guan and every other wikipedia adminstrator who is taking the time to defend the community against such attacks. I should not have to wake up in the morning and find out that my userpage was vandalized, yes, i'm calling it vandalisim, by anyone, let alone find out that it was valdalized by an administrator, that's absolutely ridiculious and in my mind is grounds for Deadminship AdamJacobMuller 11:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

...of the use of userboxes and user categories in an attempt to influence a discussion can be found here, if anyone is curious. —Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that. The irony is delicious. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not a discussion, but a Wikipedia-wide poll. See WP:AN/I#At long last, Stranger is free to reply to his many detractors. StrangerInParadise 06:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

please ban user Ktothethirdpower

User:Ktothethirdpower threatened to kill User:WAvegetarian [39]. I noticed this a few hours ago and warned Ktothethirdpower, but WAvegetarian pointed out to me that I should have done more. I apologize, and I'm trying to do the right thing now. I hope this is the right place to post this. --Allen 02:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Could have done it on the username alone, but the trolling and death threats were all the more reason. android79 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but I beat you to it [40] :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you didn't hang the tag on his user page. Doesn't count! Neener! :oP android79 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And I always remember to do that! Damn! :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah death threats are not exactly kosher. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Umph

I'm getting quite concerned about Umph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He shows no regard for our copyright policy, and has been brazen and incivil in flaunting it. At one point he reuploaded a deleted image (Image:Dave.jpg--I've now deleted it again) with the edit summary 1993 press photo from "Cryptic and OprhanBot are gay pussies with no life whatsoever" fest. I've left him the sternest of warnings. Would others mind helping me go through his upload log and take appropriate action? A lot of this is recreation of deleted content and can be speedied. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a very long or indefinite ban is probably in order for this user. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't blocked him yet. I'd like to see how he responds, if at all, to my most recent request for sources. However, if others would rather not wait and see I quite understand. Chick Bowen 05:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I'm having trouble with Lizards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Umph. He's uploading the same images Umph uploaded with the same summaries (and still no sources). He left a nasty message on my talk page about an article from WP:CP I deleted, but that is of little concern to me. I've speedied the images as G-4, and I've blocked Lizard for 24 hours. Review and advice from other admins would be welcomed. Chick Bowen 06:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And we can add Nomoretears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this list as well. All three are behaving in exactly the same manner and uploading the same images with the same filenames. See the history of Trey Anastasio. Chick Bowen 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now blocked Nomoretears indefinitely. The user's response to my request to put sources on images was to upload the same image with the summary "Chick Bowen is a loser piece of shit press photo." Chick Bowen 21:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked Umph indefinitely as well, for uploading the same image, again with no source, with a summary containing a comment about my mother. Chick Bowen 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a sock check on these users? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Welovedourdaughterbutshewasevil

Vandal account (please see contribs), offensive username. (If this is the wrong place to report this, please drop me a note on my talk page.) Thanks. Justin Eiler 04:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked: 03:28, March 4, 2006 InShaneee blocked "Welovedourdaughterbutshewasevil (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)

Replaced with: 06:40, March 4, 2006 Essjay blocked "Welovedourdaughterbutshewasevil (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{usernameblock}}) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the block just fine, but by what rationale was the username offensive? It's just a movie quote, as far as I know. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppets

Copied from above section for the ease of casual readers--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

New sockpuppet: History Repeats (talk · contribs). Based on this edit at Declaration of Independence (United States) which is identical to this edit by his previous sockpuppet Cheese Curd and others. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not a sockpuppet. --History Repeats 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• New sockpuppets:
  • Intellibot (talk · contribs), based on this edit restoring talk posts by previous sockpuppets.
  • Gay Cowboys Unite! (talk · contribs). Nonsense posts to Talk:Terrorism. User name probably a play on words of previous sockpuppet User:Go Cowboys. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

History Repeats knows what a sockpuppet is [41], despite claiming not to be one. I'm not going to block them all just yet, I'm thinking.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt about Intellibot and History Repeats. The Cowboys one could just be some random vandal, but it seems likely that it's him too. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Another one: Phallus Man (talk · contribs). This guy is something else... --JW1805 (Talk) 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• All blocked, edits reverted, pages deleted, etc.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

James W. Walter

Jimmywalter (talk · contribs), who claims to be the same person as in the Wiki article James W. Walter, is edit warring over the article in question. He has alluded to a libel lawsuit here...[42] over what he claims is misinformation on his page. I recuse myself from becoming more involved than to report the incident which was reported to my talk page...[43] by Isopropyl (talk · contribs).--MONGO 08:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely for legal threats; if he wants to make a claim of libel, he needs to do so by contacting the Foundation, not by posting to the article. Once an individual has made threats of legal action, it is no longer advisable to allow them to further complicate the situation by continuing to edit here. WP:NLT. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy up the page a little, and I've made the Jenna Orkin link and quote invisible (which is the quote Walter is objecting to) in part because I couldn't find that actual quote in the article she wrote, but also because it's not clear that, as the parent of a 9/11 victim, she would count as a reliable published third-party source within the terms of WP:V. It would be fine to use her as a source about herself and her own 9/11 movement, but probably not okay to use her as a source about a third party, especially when the comments are somewhat disparaging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, appreciate it...I posted a long comment and it was moved to Jimmywater's talk page, so I didn't want to block him...just thought I'd bring it here and let a neutral party handle it. Thanks for the article cleanup...no reason to give him any ammo.--MONGO 09:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Walter's anonymous IP 68.166.232.48 (talk · contribs) for continuing to add legal threats to James W. Walter. That IP also continued to paste Walter's resume into the article and turned it into a glowing autobiography. Oddly, the Jenna Orkin quote which Walter believe is libel was removed from the article, but Walter replaced the quote himself along with his legal threat. Rhobite 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job...I missed that one.--MONGO 11:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:JJthecool9

Something's gotta be done about this one. Warned for blatant vandalism (keeps inserting spaces in the middle of words) I blocked him for 24 hours. But in my opinion probably all most his contributions are vandalism. He keeps inserting sloppy writing and outright hoaxes into Wikipedia. Often as their own articles. I guess I can't prove that's vandalism and that might be a personal dispute, opinion, but I'd like to know what others think. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Romanian / Anti-semitism/ nazism propaganda

wikipedia's policy against Anti-Romanian edits

There are several users that have made many acts considered as Anti-Romanian...I need your support to ban them for good from here. --Stefan cel Mare 16:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging from your userpage, I think you'd benefit from a change of perspective. Consider editing articles unrelated to Romania/Romanian issues for a few days. - FrancisTyers 16:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I will see about it, thanks. I want to receive also other feedback opinions from you. Stefan cel Mare 16:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This user is an obvious sockpuppet of someone - either indefinitely blocked Bonaparte (talk · contribs · block log) or someone impersonating him. --Latinus 16:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, almost all of his 'contributions' are to his, to coin a phrase, divise and inflammatory, or possibly even polemical userpage. If you don't plan to write useful articles in the project, Stefan cel Mare, you should find a website that is actually interested in your personal beliefs, because you've come to the wrong one. -Splash^talk 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Stefan cel Mare is Romanian for Stephen the Great. - FrancisTyers 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Mark Breeder (talk · contribs). Based on this edit and this edit restoring material by previous sockpuppets. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Howardjp

Howardjp (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) doesn't often bother with edit summaries, but when he does he has a tendency to use them to make acerbic or insulting, albeit sometimes obscure, comments (for example, "you know, it says this right there", "They shouldn't give you a degree if you cannot even spell its name correctly (this is even worse than the others since you had it in front of you)", "do you ever feel like you are fixing the same idiotic mistakes again and again?", etc. I left a message on his Talk page asking him not to do this, but he immediately removed it, and left another couple of edit summaries of theis type. I have a history of conflict with him, so perhaps another admin could point out to him that he should both use edit summaries more routinely and stop using them to attack other editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:205.188.117.71

I just discovered this user's edit to Patrice Lumumba (17:05, October 1, 2005 205.188.117.71) to be blatantly lifted from a New African article from 2000. It is the entire section called 'Independence Day: "Tears, Fire, and Blood" Speech'.

Lumumba: 'We shall show the world what the black man can do when he is allowed to work in freedom' Osei Boateng. New African. London: Feb 2000., Iss. 382; pg. 22, 4 pgs

This IP address' user page details many past violations, including more plagiarism, page blanking, vandalism, etc. I would advise that this address be blocked except for the fact that it is one of those shady multi-user AOL deals. When will people be required to register to edit?

Thanks, --BadLeprechaun 17:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably never. Wikipedia is still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Requiring people to register doesn't do anything to prevent plagiarism. On the other hand, I'm starting to think that AOL proxy IPs should be blocked. I've heard that there's a way for AOL users to get a unique non-proxy IP address - if that's true, we should require the users to do that.

I removed the plagiarized content from Patrice Lumumba. Thanks for pointing it out. Rhobite 18:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the 172 range is the unique non-proxy IP addresses from AOL and I use it, its better of not give much detail about that range as vandals could use it also. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jooler and Peerage articles

Howdy! While on newpage patrol, I stumbled across Viscount Ranelagh. At the time, it contained only three names, each a red link. I deleted it under A1 and heard from Jooler right away. Please see the conversation at: User_talk:Chairboy#Viscount_Ranelagh

I'd like a couple things. First, a sanity check on my actions (was I a dick?), and second, a brief discussion about peerage articles. Do we really have flocks of essentially empty articles filled with nothing but red-links, and is that really kosher? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The version that exists now is quite good. The version that you deleted was bloody worthless. Jooler is way out of line with his attitude, assumption of bad faith, and general nastiness, and needs to go sit in the corner. --Golbez 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the notability of an individual title is asserted in two ways: inclusion within a larger project, and because the notability of peers is asserted on the ground that they were members of a sovereign legislature. Jooler could have behaved better, but deleting this kind of article after five minutes, when its creator is an established editor isn't particularly friendly action. It would have been a good faith action on your part to communicate with him first. Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone is an established editor, they should know what constitues a proper article- A list of three internal links to articles that don't exist is not a proper article, it has no context. Chairboy did nothing wrong whatsoever.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Beg differ. Not everyone does the whole thing on the first edit. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? There's clearly an article to be written here. I fail to see the need for hasty action in this case.

<edit conflict> - Chairboy - answers - yes and yes. Golbez - "The version that you deleted was bloody worthless" - that version was a single edit and it was deleted less than 5 minutes after it was created. The rest of the information was being collated at the time that it was deleted. I apologise for my tone to Chairboy, but his action was out line line, if only for ignorance. As a long established editor, I don't like to be patronised and talked to as if I just stumbled across this site yesterday. <added later>. Sean I do not read Wikipedia policy documents for fun but I seem to recollect that there is some rule of thumb about allowing articles to develop before deleting them out of hand, and I don't seem to recall any ruling that says that an article should be created in a single edit. Thank you. Additionally the "claim" of "no context" is pure rot. The title of the article is Viscount Ranelagh and I listed three people who held that title, while I went off to research the rest of it. This bears no relation to the example on WP:CSD on A1 and clearly it DOES confirm to the part which says Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. A search engine may help in determining context and allow for the article's expansion.. Clearly Chairboy did not follow the advice. Jooler 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on. It didn't even have a sentence explaining the significance to the article's title. There's no excuse for not writing something (anything! One sentence would suffice) explaining what the article is about. That's the definition of "no context".--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the article because of a red link on Earl of Ranelagh. At the point that I made that single edit, I had not discovered when the title was created and in which of the Peerages of the United Kingdom it existed and so I did not put a header on the page. If you care to google it you will discover that there is no single reliable source for this specific of information, and I had to go off and research it. What was the article about? it was about the title and the people who held it, like every other peerage page, it is self-evident. Jooler 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"That version was a single edit and it was deleted less than 5 minutes after it was created." I might be alone here, but I prefer that the first edit be self-sustainable. I don't know if I've ever created a CSD-worthy stub. Telling people "Just wait 10 more minutes for my next edit!" doesn't work for me - spend that extra ten minutes on the article before you click "submit". If you can't be bothered to do that, why should we be bothered to wait? Now, personally, I would have probably let it sit in a tab and come back to it a few minutes later to see if it had matured, and if not, then I would have probably deleted it. The title alone does not generate context. This might just be me, but to quote the Soup Nazi, I expect perfection of myself, why should I expect less of others? :) --Golbez 21:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not alone, but as I noted above, not everyone does everything in the first edit. There's no need to delete something like this quickly. It's not doing any harm, has the potential to establish context, and did so quite quickly. Sometimes I think we're too quick on the trigger with CSD. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I think we're too quick to accuse others of being in the wrong when we could have fixed the problem ourselves with ten second's work.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder... if I had not made links but had just listed the peers without a link would Chairboy have deleted it as speedily. Jooler 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably- That's just as little context, if not less.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If I'd known about the problem I'd have dealt with it? How am I to know of a stub needing attention when it gets speedied five minutes after creation? I think a better solution might have been listing it on WP:PROD. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed a simple assumption of good faith and a quick Google (as per WP:CSD) would have shown that the article had potential. I might also argue that the incident has been an education for Chairboy as to the significance of the peerage. These people ruled us Britons, politically an economically. Jooler 21:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Us" is the key word here. There's no way someone who doesn't know as much about the peerage as you do could at all comprehend the article.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's okay to delete something because you know nothing about it? Okay of course it isn't and it isn't what you meant. British history is part of your history aswell. There is no way I go think it right to delete a stubby list of Governors of Hawaii because it was a load of red links (check the dates of the links). Jooler 21:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that has a sentence explaining what the article is. That's context. Your's didn't have anything of the sort, and therefore wouldn't make any sort of sense to those who don't have a detailed knowledge of the peerage.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"wouldn't make any sort of sense to those who don't have a detailed knowledge of the peerage" - and should therefore be deleted!? because of the administrator's ignorance of his own history - perhaps that is what you are saying! In any case - Sentence what sentence? I see nothing more than a repetition of the title of the article and "since statehood" - so you say perhaps that if I had put "Since creation" and repeated "Viscount Ranelagh" - I would have been safe? Because that would have "given context". Am I correct? <added later> - BTW you are looking at the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Governors_of_Hawaii&oldid=1183636 rather than the current version arn't you? Jooler 22:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Horrible little list, but at least Hawaii is linked. --Golbez 02:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu drunk

There's an incident that I must report. On this lovely Irish evening the 5th of March Babajobu was unbelievably drunk. Please monitor. Babajobu 01:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu is not so drunk that he can't post without typos, so no ambulance, SWAT team, or FEMA intervention seems necessary. However, it might be advisable to refrain from driving until the effects wear off. Have fun! Zora 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There's an incident that I must report. On this lovely Irish evening the 5th of March Babajobu was unbelievably inevitably drunk. Please monitor.

• FIXED! —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 06:37Z

User:Danmeister

Danmeister posts prolifically on various anime-related articles and Talk:Main Page in the form of orders that people MUST write about certain fictional junk for him, with lots of exclamation points. If you read these messages, it seems that they aren't even addressed to Wikipedians -- they're addressed to fictional characters. Danmeister doesn't just not understand what Wikipedia is, he seems to not understand what the real world is.

He pays no attention to messages left on his talk page, or the fact that his messages get reverted for being off-topic. Is it appropriate for him to be blocked for spamming talk pages with off-topic messages? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that makes me sad. He's probably just an enthusiastic kid who doesn't quite understand what's going on here. Oh well. If someone else wants to block him, I woulnd't object, but I don't want to do it myself.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. Clearly someone who shouldn't be here, but how the hell do you explain it to them? Being a fan of the games whose pages he frequents, he also wants false info added, so... damn, I dunno. Maybe block him and hope he just goes away? :P --Golbez 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for an hour. Maybe this will get him to slow down and read his talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise spambot spamming userpages

I've just blocked this user 31 hours for, as the block message puts it: "Personal attack spamming on userpages (apparently bot-assisted)". This [44] is a good example. He's been cranking these out at a steady pace. Mindspillage tried cluifying him [45], but it appears to have been clues to the clueless - he responded and kept going, somewhere past thirty or forty. I recall IZAK was strongly rapped by the AC for hitting ten or so userpages, and not even with personal attacks ... this sort of partisan spam attack is exactly why many people regard userboxes as blatant encouragement to factionalist attacks of this sort. And why they deserve immediate attention. Anyone severely upset by this block? - David Gerard 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Using Assisted-AutoBrowsers and what not for this use is dispicable.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As mindspillage says: "Vote stacking. It's not good. This is the reason people are against userboxes in the first place. It's just not on to go rally people you think will support you and urge them to sway a discussion a certain way." (the emphasis by bolding is mindspillage's own)

Let's stop this now. It must be killed, dealt a blow from which it will never recover. We need a solid ruling from the arbitration committee against all vote stacking. Otherwise, I just cannot see our principles of making decisions on policy by consensus surviving. We cannot have decisions by consensus if some editors feel free to subvert every attempt to determine that consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The vote-stacking part of this is bad, of course, but it isn't the only concern. Would his actions have been any less reprehensible if he hadn't mentioned the ongoing policy discussions in his message? —Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What amazes me is the lack of comprehension that spamming is bad. Doesn't he have email? - David Gerard 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

He probably thinks it's acceptable if it's for a good cause. There are a number of people who have spammed various people with messages that essentially boil down to "DOWN WITH THE ADMIN CABAL!" recently; maybe we should just go ahead and create Wikipedia:No revolutions, to discourage such things. —Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

He claims on his talk page that he did not use a bot. He does appear to have been using cut'n'paste or subst:ing a custom template. Not that I care deeply - it's odious behaviour and you will see from his talk page that he's utterly unrepentant. I noted that IZAK got ten days' ban for spamming talk pages with personal attacks, which suggests that 31 hours is so short as to be out of process; presumably StrangerInParadise should have the option of the longer penalty if he prefers - David Gerard 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to do this sort of thing just using Firefox with a large number of open tabs. —Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Or javascript tabs.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done something similar doing cleanups of double redirects in article space without a bot handy ;-) - David Gerard 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony people have been trying stop this now for quite a while. The only result is anger and the ocassional counter strike. It isn't a time for action any more. It is a time for talk. For negotation. The reasonable people on the various sides need to come to an argreement and freeze out the unreasonable ones. This is of course going to take time. However the is no other option that has any chance of working in the long term.Geni 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I entirely support the block and agree with David Gerard that it's a relatively lenient one in all the circumstances. However it is in some ways fortunate that StrangerInParadise has come along to demonstrate exactly why Categories of Wikipedians by POV are wrong at just the point that it comes under discussion. For myself I would say that I would have much less hostile feelings toward Userboxes in general if none of them had included categories. Whatever process is used, we need to have a resolution of the Userbox problem which reminds everyone that Wikipedians are supposed to leave their POV behind, and Categories by POV are so far away from that that I really can't see why anyone can defend them. David | Talk 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Butting in here, I just want to note that, as far as I can determine, every proposed userbox policy, old and new, has included language to the effect that double categorization (by templates and categories) is unnecessary. I believe it's not far fetched to say that there already is a consensus for the position that, no matter what one may think about templatized userboxes, the inclusion of categories is at best redundant. Until SIP came along, nobody seemed to particularly mind the removal of categories from templatized userboxes. In the present case, insisting on having an advocacy category as part of an advocacy template is especially wrong. The usual disclaimers about "disclosing biases" etc. don't apply: the "pro-cannabis" template and category are advocacy for a cause that is completely external to Wikipedia (and the same would hold for a hypothetical "anti-cannabis" category, in case that wasn't obvious). The point is that no amount of editing Wikipedia can effect the changes advocated by the people who sign on to this template/category. As such, the advocacy is purely external, as opposed to Wikipedia-related advocacy (e.g. "school articles should be improved not deleted"). The way SIP went about this makes me question his motives and wonder whether a longer block (say, for the duration of UPP) may be more appropriate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's becoming clear that internal WikiPolitical categorizations are an even greater problem that external political ones. —Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I fear you may be right. David | Talk 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians has been around forever and even killing the more recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion is probably more trouble than it is worth.Geni 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, that particular group is rather less confrontational that some of what we've been seeing lately. —Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not a problem until it's a problem. Userboxes weren't a problem until (1) the Association of Catholic Wikipedians (2) the idiots who tried to vote copyright violations into force in userboxes in the face of Kelly Martin foolishly doing the sensible, legal and on-policy thing. When it is a problem, then treat it as a problem - David Gerard 02:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall much (other than complaining) being done about school watch back in the day. The on policy thing would have been to remove the images and leave the boxes. Unfortunetly Kelly Martin chose not to do this. A lot of stuff later here we are. No you can either try and continue the conflict or you can let people talk things out.Geni 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This example seems on the face of it disingenuous - as you know, Schoolwatch actually did lots of work on improving articles in the face of people who wanted to delete almost all school articles. That is, it was directly for the encyclopedia - David Gerard 12:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Schoolwatch fits in. It wasn't an organization, just a regularly updated wiki page. All Wikipedians were free to edit it and anyone could add the page to his watchlist. There was no spamming of user talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. The sensible and on-policy thing would have been to remove the images and leave the boxes themselves alone. (And I'm not at all convinced that this is a "legal" issue - I'm not aware of any cases where anyone has even been sent a C&D letter, much less actually sued, for using fair use images in this way. It's simply a matter of Foundation policy. No need for m:Copyright paranoia.) And I also don't see why every user on Wikipedia should have to pay for the sins of the "Association of Catholic Wikipedians". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have written up an idea that would take us out of the userbox wars while removing the ability to vote stack. I think this could make people on both sides of the userbox debate happy without resorting to any more mass deletions. Please tell if this would be possible. Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Technical_Solution.--God Ω War 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it mentioned here, so I'll just note that Babajobu unblocked at 01:22, 5 March 2006. Rx StrangeLove 06:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversation with StrangerInParadise in IRC led me to believe that he does not see why his actions were inappropriate and that he would continue them, reducing the issue to the oversimplified "why can I not contact a list of people?" and not acknowledging his actions were any more than that. The thought that this is acceptable practice is more harmful than the placement or removal of any silly colored boxes. As such, if StrangerInParadise doesn't realize how his actions were harmful and plans to continue then, I'm fine with the block, and would like to know why Babajobu believes it should be undone; I'm inviting him to this thread. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to this: after a long conversation with SiP in private message, he's agreed that the mass of dissent this is attracted is cause to question his actions. He's also taken issue with my statement that I believed he would continue. I'll accept that he was done with that round of notifications, and in light of the reaction to it would seek clarification before undertaking other such actions, but I'm still not quite convinced he sees why I and others believe this was so wrong. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as you were writing this I put the block back on for 12 hours, I thinks it's a basic courtesy to make a note of it when someone reverts an action when there's an ongoing discussion. There seems to be a decent consensus for this block here. Rx StrangeLove 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I want to expand a little why I re-blocked, when Babajobu unblocked he mentioned in the summary that the block needed a discussion, but he didn't discuss or mention the unblock anywhere. I wouldn't have done this if he had said something here, on Davids page or even on StrangerInParadise's talk page. But I don't think it's right to do it and then not mention it to anyone. Rx StrangeLove 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted three of this user's subpages, as they were only used to stack votes by spamming user talk pages. Note that the user encouraged other users to do the same using these user templates^[46]. The pages in question are {{User:StrangerInParadise/PCI}}, {{User:StrangerInParadise/AbstainerMsg}}, and {{User:StrangerInParadise/VNOUPP}}. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF. That's an unrepentant spammer. When the block comes off, I hope admins will be watching this user extremely closely - David Gerard 13:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

hmm did we ever get an outright apology from Ram-Man? Should we be watching him to?Geni 15:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to apologize for unblocking Stranger last night without discussing it first. In fact, I wasn't even aware of this discussion, but my normal M.O. when I disagree with a block is to query the blocking admin (in this case David Gerard) rather than just unilaterally lifting the block. What I did was in very bad form. I had an overly pleasant Saturday evening out in Dublin with some friends, returned home on the Luas and then made the egregious error of WWD--Wikiing While Drunk. First time in over 7000 edits that I've done that, and it shan't happen again! After revisiting the issue, I must agree that Stranger's spamming of talkpages (though AWB isn't a bot, each post is still submitted by the editor) with uncivil vote jockeying was very much inappropriate, and that because an initial effort to discuss it with him didn't meet with any success, a short block was not inappropriate. I do think, though, that 31 hours was far too long, given that there are what I consider to be very real mitigating circumstances. Users like Stranger are being relentlessly provoked and antagonized by admins who continue to implement the proposed template and category space policy while the poll is still ongoing. I support the new userbox policy, and will implement it if it is passed. But it makes a mockery of the entire process, and is a slap in the face of those users who are participating in the poll in good faith, to go on ad hoc deletion binges while mocking the concerns of affected users, all while we are supposedly still going through the process of developing a protocol about how these issues should be handled. As a wise man has said, "admins wield a mop, not a sceptre". When we act as though we wield a sceptre, it shouldn't surprise us when an irritated user starts spamming about rogue admins and attempts to "rally the newbs" against us. Anyway, again, apologies for my rash and undiscussed unblocking last night, I should have raised these issues with you rather than lifting the block. Babajobu 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that you think administrators should sit on their hands until a new written policy is formed? Sorry, doesn't wash. Wikipedia doesn't have a written policy on a lot of matters, but administrators will take action to defend the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What I think is that the ad hoc deletion binges are sowing enormous resentment among ordinary users, and are controversial even among admins, many of whom (myself included) believe that these deletions have done more to distract the community from its task of encyclopedia-building than the existence of the userboxen ever did. Moreover, Jimbo has explicitly stated that his words should not be interpreted as support for these sorts of deletions. I've never doubted for a second that admins who continue to delete the userboxen are doing so because they genuinely believe that they are acting in the best interests in Wikipeda, but not only do I disagree with them, I also think they are exercising a degree of authority that no one has ever given them. I think they have made adminship an *enormous* deal, have chomped down on tons of newbies, have fomented a pointless and unnecessary wiki-class-war, and accomplished very little else in the process. That's how I see it, obviously I know you disagree. But why not just wait until the new policy is established, when the same thing can be accomplished with considerably less controversy? Babajobu 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what? Grossly non-encyclopedic categories in userboxes have been considered a bad thing since they first showed up. And notably, Mark (and others) has been removing such categories from userboxes for the last while now (particularly since the Catholic Alliance thing showed they were susceptible to gross abuse) with no objections whatsoever ... until SIP decided it was a great case with which to demonstrate just why such categories are a serious problem. Are you seriously saying Mark should have been continuously checking just in case someone had written a poll on a heretofore uncontroversially-accepted action? That really doesn't seem reasonable or workable. The problem here is not that Mark was deleting odious categories that were accepted to be a bad thing, but that a user then objected to the removal of an odious category by acting in a further odious manner - David Gerard 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying he shouldn't go on deletion binges of categories and templates that as yet meet no criterion for speedy deletion, and then wheel-war over those deletions. If you think his doing so is fabulous for Wikipedia, we'll just have to disagree. I think we'd all be better off if he spent that time working on articles. Babajobu 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is that the new proposed userbox policy is slowly losing any consensus it once might have had and editors are pushing to have T1 removed and probably will do so over the next day or so as there hasn't been much opposition to it's removal. We'll be left with no real userbox policy at that point. Rx StrangeLove 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. There will still be the wikiproject's standards and the copyvio rules.Geni 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an operational consensus for the new proposed policy, and that it or something similar will likely be declared our site policy before long. Straw polls are useful, but they're not definitive, and we can make allowances for the preponderance of oppose votes by editors who were alerted through the Anti-censorship WikiProject and those who were alerted through talk page spamming. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What I also find very disruptive was the mass reversion of people's talk pages who did get this message. I got the message, and, well I have quite a few userboxes. Alot of them have been subst'ed via Pathoschilds list, which I think is a nice thing, but I also voted against the overall policy. But that is not what this is for. I agree, there could have been a better way of going about telling users about the new Userboxen policy vote, but it was effective. Mass spamming is bad, but so is mass reversion. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As the talk page spamming was directed exclusively at those who possessed userboxes, it could never be effective in alerting people about the poll. A small minority of Wikipedians have any userboxes at all; an even smaller minority have userboxes that would be affected by this poll. Alerting only a selected subsection of Wikipedians on a site-wide policy is de facto vote rigging. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends. Alterting those most likely to be affected is logical justifable.Geni 23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For a system-wide policy? Uh uh: vote-stacking is vote-stacking. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't system wide. The new policy wont effect me in any way shape or form (unless Template:Userpage is declared a userbox). No userbox policy can or ever will.Geni 23:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought this policy applied to Wikipedia, being, you know, policy. And since StrangerInParadise himself calls it a "Wikipedia-wide poll", he's undercut your defense of him. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how it applies to the article namespace. The rest of your edit is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.Geni 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit like asking that notices about a policy forbidding smoking in elevators should be preferentially directed towards people who are likely to smoke in elevators, with the intention of ensuring that they would comprise a disproportionate number of those peple voting on the new policy? This is a system-wide policy in that it would affect you and me as much as anyone else--to observe that we don't want to do what would be covered by the policy is fatuous. Of course we don't! But some people do, and that is why a policy is needed. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The alturnative is generaly refured to as the tyrany of the majority. Whatever is decided on needs some level of acceptance amoung the userbox users as well as the non userbox users. It looks like more talk is needed. If people would stop trying to finsh things by dramatic gestures in the meantime it would be much apeatated.Geni 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

At long last, Stranger is free to reply to his many detractors

I did intentionally place a notice urging an Oppose vote on WP:UPP on the talk pages of 43 United Nations Wikipedians, and intended do 12 more (completing Wikipedians S through Z), and call it a day. Apart from knowing them to have been subject to MarkSweep's mass blanking and category depopulation efforts, I had no personal connection that I can recollect with those 43 contacted.

I intended to be partisan, and although I felt a strict obligation to be accurate, I did not consider myself any more obliged to present both sides of this discussion than those who go about declaring Userboxes are evil in official proceedings. Therein, I characterized certain acts as those of a rogue admin, as I believe that to be an accurate description of a mass blanking campaign using admin tools to disrupt an established Wikipedia process of categorizing Wikipedians by perspective, as well as to thereby depopulate categories so as speciously to qualify them for CSD-C1 (empty). My note did not constitute a personal attack, but did reference the specific reprehensible acts of identifiable persons.

I was unaware of either any policy prohibiting this, or the degree of outrage on principle this act would provoke. I was unfamiliar with the ArbCom ruling cited, and do not see that it would necessarily apply to a Wikipedia-wide poll. I did not at any time receive notice that my actions were prohibited, though I was paused in discussions with Mindspillage over her express concerns about them at the time I was blocked. The reader should note that this is the first time in five years at Wikipedia that I have been blocked for anything.

As to charges of vote-stacking, it remains unclear to me how one can stack a vote in a Wikipedia-wide poll. As Avriette has pointed out, this is somewhat counter-intuitive. To DavidGerard's comment that my acquaintance with email should have clarified for me how this is odious spam, I would point out that (outside of the peculiar world of Wikipedia) spam is an unwanted message undesired by and of no relevance to the recipient. In DR's own experience of email, how often does spam receive positive action and thank you notes?

Contrary to statements by Mindspillage and others above, I did not at any time indicate that I would continue to place notices if told it was prohibited. I was unblocked by Babajobu within minutes of my block- and correctly, as there was no prior notice and the allegation of a spambot was patently false. Reblocking was unnecessary, and only allowed the above unfounded criticisms to go unanswered. My intention was- and is- to seek clarification on what appears to be an undocumented region of policy about which several Wikipedians nevertheless have strong feelings.

As previously discussed, I placed the notices by hand, using a subst'd page from my userspace. This and two others personal pages have been deleted, without sanction by policy. Though recreating them would be trivial, I will ask that at least the latter two be restored to me, especially as that it was done by a coauthor of WP:UPP to pages critical of it seems more than a bit improper. Only one was used in the UN campaign (User:StrangerInParadise/VNOUPP). Another (User:StrangerInParadise/PCI) was used to personal contacts and pages I frequent at Wikipedia and only said that there was a vote, but did not make a recommendation. The third (User:StrangerInParadise/AbstainerMsg) was not used, but the intended use was an alternative to the lobbying on the pollingspace itself, which I thought unseemly (JesseW, the Juggling Janitor comes to mind as having been prolific, though I and others did as well).

Finally, I note with that combination of dismay and amusement unique to Wikipedia the naked politicking above by coauthors and proponents of WP:UPP, calculating the political influence and how best to salvage their losing proposal. MarkSweep's suggestion that I be banned for the duration of WP:UPP was extra-special in this regard. Any charges of undue influence and corruption of process should be considered in this light.

StrangerInParadise 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise, I'd like to take this opportunity to repeat some of our founder's words and ideas: here, we're all Wikipedians. We strive to be as civil as possible, to respect each other as much as humanly possible, and to assume good faith to the greatest degree. Calling admins "rougue", regardless of what you thought of their actions, is simply uncalled for; if you disagree with their actions, simply say so, but characterizing them in a negative fashion is uncalled for. In addition, as Mindspillage (who is a she, by the way) told you earlier, we generally don't like people trying to influence other people by placing mass notices on user talk pages. Remember, we're all here to work on an encyclopedia; calling a certain proposal to attention for selected Wikipedians is generally frowned upon. There are other ways of getting your point across. Please, Stranger, take time to reflect upon Jimbo's plea for calm and unity, and act accordingly. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've commented previously that the actions described as rogue were so far beyond either civility or sanction that no assumption of good faith is possible. The term indicates restraint on my part. As to consensus, influence, and policy formation, this is a different and evolving discussion. I point out in my defense only that the proposal is already before an audience of largely selected Wikipedians, and that it is likely that, should it close at a significant number, the policy will be slammed into effect without reprieve. StrangerInParadise 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As to charges of vote-stacking, it remains unclear to me how one can stack a vote in a Wikipedia-wide poll. By notifying only a small subset of people who can be predicted to vote your way, duh. This is so obvious I can't imagine how he could type this and still keep a straight face. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The very dynamics of how people have became aware of the vote suggest vote-stacking of a sort. The pretense that this corrupts the poll assumes it was not corrupted to begin with. The fact is that I could choose pools of Wikipedians at random to notify in the most neutral fashion, and support would continue to drop because this only has minority support. Make no mistake, I sought to notify only a small group of affected Wikipedians. If you like, do the same: where is this pool of anti-userbox sentiment? If you polled those who have responded to the poll as to

• how they learned of the poll
• whether they were administrators
• whether they were motivated by an experience of vote-stacking
• whether they were motivated by POV issues generally

...you would see how self-selected the respondants were. There are all kinds of interesting possibilities for, say, randomly-selected juries and voire dire, but that is another discussion to which to look forward. This is more than a small straw poll, there is every indication that the policy would be slammed into effect without reprieve. StrangerInParadise 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You claim that "The fact is that I could choose pools of Wikipedians at random to notify in the most neutral fashion, and support would continue to drop because this only has minority support" but that claim is very easily exploded. Within days of its inception, this poll was publicised on Wikipedia:Village Pump (Policy) and Wikipedia:Current surveys, and Template:Cent. I do recognise that you're on a very sticky wicket here, defending what even you must recognise is morally indefensible, but it really isn't on to pretend that we're all stupid. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand by what I have said, which is hardly exploded by your statement. Village Pump (Policy) is read mostly by policy wonks like us, and cycles to archive rapidly. Current surveys and Cent I have never heard of, a shortcoming on my part shared by most of the people affected by this proposal. It is not difficult to see that this is, again, a self-selected group- not a bad group, just not representative. As for morally reprehensible, don't get me started.... StrangerInParadise 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Template:Cent appears on a lot of pages ( there a lot of archived pages on that list but plenty of active ones). Anyone both interested in this issue and at all active will run into it. I don't know how you can assume that most people affected by this have not heard of it. Rx StrangeLove 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only say, Rx, that your grasp of demographics is fanciful at best. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think you can be uncivil like that? Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I find get-out-the-vote efforts, however they're conducted, to be democratic rather than anti-democratic. I don't see what's wrong with informing people of a policy debate, as long as all sides have the same right to do so. And I have zero opinion on userboxes. moink 03:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you saw the message itself? What I really took issue with was the loaded language and serious assumption of bad faith in it. Accusing those on the other side of "sabotage" and destroying things, and urging them to vote one way or another, doesn't sit very well with me. A neutral message on the Village Pump or something would be fine. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The willful destruction and bad faith is a documented fact, a fact you find distasteful, but a fact. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Each side of this debate can campaign for votes. Since consensus is suppossed to be from all of wikipedia then the side with the most side should win.--God Ω War 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This and other issues are not votes, nor a count of the most supporters. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite. It doesn't matter, in the end, how many of these activities are engaged in. If as I am now certain is going to happen there is a clear and very solid consensus for the proposed Userbox policy, it will be adopted. Those who engage in "getting out the vote" have completely failed to understand how Wikipedia's decision-making process operates. --Tony Sidaway 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you say this now, Tony and Rx, but had the vote gone your way, it would be the most important thing. What evidence do you have of this consensus, which as we speak falls below 60%. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that things are going my way. That you've attempted to sabotage it doesn't alter that. Allowances can be made. My evidence? Until the sabotage attempts began, when the poll was gathering a more broadly representative subsection of opinion, support showed well over 70%. Make no mistake, that you have resortee to blatantly underhand techniques is a sign that you have failed. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know things on Wikipedia are not straightforward counts (although they're often treated that way). But having more opinions, more arguments, more viewpoints represented in a policy discussion... is that really a bad thing? moink 04:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad thing. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Gandhi who said, We have but to spit and the British would drown. This is the issue with this userbox policy, once even a few of those affected learn of it, it's over. StrangerInParadise 05:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"I can only say, Rx, that your grasp of demographics is fanciful at best" -StrangerInParadise. I'm growing tired of StrangerInParadise's tendancy to engage in personal attacks and incivility when discussing issues. I'll just leave it at this, drawing large numbers into a debate is good, but Mindspillage said it best and I don't feel like repeating it. When the abuse starts I tend to tune out. Rx StrangeLove 05:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only direct you to the spectrum of abuse, threats, condescension and insults directed at me in this very proceding, and ask who has been more the subject of personal attacks. Then I'd direct your attention to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cent, and ask you to count the pages that remain after eliminating Log pages, other templates, obscure policy process pages and links to the template, and reassess the statement, Anyone both interested in this issue and at all active will run into it? The odds of an interested party seeing this are very small, indicating my original point, that the poll has been largely before a select audience. StrangerInParadise 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) two wrongs don't make a right; 2) advising you you that what you are doing, in the strong opinion of a large number of commentators, is wrong does not constitute "abuse, threats, condescension and insults". The martydom act doesn't look good on you, and certainly doesn't grant you a self-serving exception to the norms . --Calton | Talk 07:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an editor there are dispute resolution procedures available for you to use. Personal attacks are not allowed and WP:CIVIL is official policy here. Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With people performing out-of-policy blocks (and reblocks), incivility towards me is the least of my concerns. My commenting on your argument is not uncivil, even with a clearly facitious judgement on your reasoning powers. Don't take it personally. StrangerInParadise 06:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The "I was only joking" defense doesn't really work and I'd ask that you stop making personal attacks and violating WP:CIVIL. If you'd like to continue this on my talk page fine, this isn't really the place for it. Rx StrangeLove 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban for LaszloWalrus

I recently reported LaszloWalrus for a 3RR violation caused by edit-warring on Ayn Rand. As a result, he got banned, the page was Protected, and I was banned, too. He moved the edit war to Objectivism and homosexuality, which I got Protected before anyone got banned. The Protection from Ayn Rand was lifted just now, with a suggestion from Tony Sidaway that I took as a ruling on the initial issue. Unfortunately, Lazslo's immediate response was to ignore it and edit war some more. It hasn't gotten to 3RR yet and I don't want it to.

As per the suggestion on top, I won't rant on, but if you need links to relevant areas, just ask. My request is that he be banned for a substantial period of time. A one-day ban did nothing to slow him down. Alienus 01:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm dealing with this case. It's just a silly edit war and I'll block both parties if they persist. And I've told them this. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, you're dealing with it. What do you recommend now?

He won't Talk, he won't leave the category alone. Should I let him get his way or should I try to fix the category and get us both banned? I think there's a third solution, and it's up to an admin to implement it. Alienus 02:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of these editors are playing silly buggers so I've blocked them for three hours to give them a chance to contemplate the effect that their intransigence has had on the three articles they're edit warring over.

As is my custom, I subject this block to review. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No objections. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, these two editors were warring on Ayn Rand, Objectivism and homosexuality, and a completely unconnected article Rodeo Drive. It was clear therefore that the problem lay with two editors who seem to believe that they have an intrinsic right to edit war. Asking them clearly to stop edit warring, warning them both of the consequences of continuing, had no effect at all. These three hour blocks are to stop the immediate bad behavior, and to show that I'm not bluffing about consequences. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just noted that Alienus (talk · contribs) resumed edit warring on Objectivism and homosexuality after his brief block ended, and LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs) resumed edit warring on Rodeo Drive. I've added a further block of 21 hours to both editors, making the total period up to 24 hours. I expect to see some more reasonable behavior from both when the block ends. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've posted article RFCs on both Ayn Rand and Objectivism and homosexuality regarding the disputed category. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Happyjoe

I while ago I received this message on my talk page, and didn't notice it, because I got so many other messages at the same time. Careless of me, I know, but here it is:

I now accept the pillars of Wikipedia and I agree to abide by all of the rules, regulations and policies of Wikipedia, including respect for consensus and NPOV. Further, I have given up my attempts to provide any input for the Big Spring, TX article. I have prayed about my actions and have been guided to seek forgiveness and change my ways. And I agree to cease making POV edits. I give my 100% word that I will not revert to my old ways and will strive to be a model citizen of the Wikipedia community. Therefore, I most sincerely ask for you to please give me another chance and to unblock my account. I assure you that I will not let you down. Thank you - Happyjoe 24.232.183.52 06:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE!!!

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this situation, and I leave it for others to judge. For those are unfamiliar with the story, here are the links: Happyjoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Happyjoe. Chick Bowen 02:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The sad truth is that he continued to vandalize with open proxies and random IPs for days after he spammed a bunch of people with messages like that. This is just one example on one of the IPs: [47] Spam history can be seen here, [48]. Also, Essjay replied to this guy already. pschemp | talk 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those diffs. I just wanted to make sure. Chick Bowen 03:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happyjoe to help.  ;) pschemp | talk 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

IP address 66.57.20.207

This user constantly blanks warnings from his talk page. File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Standard procedure in a case of an IP blanking notices from their talk page is to revert and warn and if they continue then let an admin know and ask them to temporarily protect the page though that should be avoided if possible since user talk pages are mean't for people to be able to communicate with the person and visa versa. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 10:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I needed to know. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice once more

Deeceevoice, just back from a block: "...JFAS seems to believe only white academics can have any credibility..." User on probation for racially related incivility, among other things. [49] Justforasecond 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit that this could have been taken the wrong way. I understand what you meant, but I do believe that it was that particular comment that deeceevoice was responding to, and she was, in fact, answering your question. Chick Bowen 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious I was responding with Urthogie's language. There was no need for DCV to elevate this into a personal attack on me. If this were in isolation it should slide, but DCV has an extensive history of incivility and not assuming good faith. Justforasecond 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And you have an extensive history of needling her. Given that and your direct involvement in the present example, I'm sure you can understand that I'm having difficulty with the mental gymnastics of casting a good faith view on you bringing this up here - David Gerard 17:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder regarding core Wikipedia policies Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox [[50]]

Deeceevoice removes sourced [51] [52]references prior to the 1920/30 Jazz era [53] and [54] and [55], and eventhough Deeceevoice included the etymology of "hipi" into Cool (African philosophy) [56] she removes the etymology of Cool from Cool, [57] and changes the section header from "Origins" to "Origins in African-American culture" [58], After a 3RR warning she single-handedly moves the whole page [59] "This page should be deleted" [60] [61] and refuses to source her edits eventhough Urthogie asked her to provide sources:

DCV, since you posted those statements of fact, can I expect you to have a couple sources by 2 weeks from now?--Urthogie 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And this is Deeceevoice's response:

No. deeceevoice 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC) [62]

CoYep 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, is there a particular reason why you feel the need to bird dog Deeceevoice? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the user is upset about his white-history.com link being removed, see documentation here. - FrancisTyers 15:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

For serious. The last thing you pointed out was block-worthy, but this just looks like Wiki-stalking. See also Alabamaboy's RfA statement Ashibaka tock 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys wouldn't think it were uncivil to say that you considered only contributions of white academics credible? Justforasecond 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We know Deecee has a temper, but she makes good edits too, and in this case she is in the middle of a discussion about an article. Come back if she is actually being disruptive. Ashibaka tock 20:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Help, help, I'm surrounded by sockpuppets!

The Christianity article has been in trouble since January. A new user, Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrived, and began to make changes that were considered too controversial to be added without consensus. When he was reverted, he reverted back. He took advantage of the fact that we didn't want to report a newcomer for 3RR violations, and kept on reverting, despite pleas and warnings. Once he even reverted 11 times in eighteen and a half hours, even though he was perfectly aware of the rule. His practice was to post a defence of his edit on the talk page, then to reinsert his edit, with "see talk page" in the edit summary, despite the objections of many other editors.

He was joined by a brand new editor, BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who immediately started reverting to his versions, and arguing in favour of his edits on the talk pages. She followed him to other pages, and voted for whatever he voted for. We suspected sockpuppetry. MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kecik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued this practice — brand new editors who reverted to Giovanni's version, and voted for whatever he voted for, following him to lots of different articles. All four editors violated 3RR greatly over and above a possible accidental slip into four reverts. They were not reported at first as they were new. When they continued to revert after repeated warnings, they were reported. All four have been blocked, Giovanni, most frequently.

A checkuser found no evidence of sockpuppetry with MikaM and Kecik, although we still suspect there is a connection, even if they have different IP addresses, as they seem to have no purpose on Wikipedia other than to revert to Giovanni's version, and to give an appearance of consensus for his version on talk pages. In particular, MikaM uses the same language style. The checkuser established that Giovanni33 = BelindaGong. They were both blocked for 24 hours, as they had taken more than three reverts betwen them. The block was later increased to 48 hours. Giovanni later claimed that Belinda was his wife, "and therefore not a sockpuppet", even though they had actively pretended (in their messages to each other) not to know each other.

While Giovanni was "serving his block", another "brand new" user, Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared. He came straight to the Christianity talk page, said he was new, but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni. He then reverted to Giovanni's version. Then Giovanni answered a question which had been posted to his talk page, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker.[63] He changed it immediately,[64] but it was too late, as we had already seen it. He then claimed that he just happened to be at Freethinker's house, and was showing him how to edit Wikipedia, and that Freethinker had allowed him to answer a question on his talk page, from Freethinker's computer. The "Freethinker99" account was blocked, though not indefinitely. (The "BelindaGong" account was also not blocked indefinitely.)

This evening, yet another "brand new" editor, RTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared on the Christianity page, and reverted to something which Giovanni had inserted, without consensus, on Tuesday, and which had been reverted by another user. (This was his third edit; his first two were to his user and talk pages.) He then, in Giovanni's style, defended it on the talk page, and reverted back, again, and again, and again. I warned him, before he had gone over the three reverts, although I was convinced he was a sockpuppet and didn't need to be told of the rules. I warned him again, rather than reporting him, after he had violated 3RR. I explained the rules fully, e.g. about partial reverts, etc. He just kept on reverting, in the style of Giovanni/Belinda. When he had reached seven reverts, I made a hasty report to WP:AN/3RR, without diffs, as I was going to dinner. He was blocked by another administrator for 3 hours, just to stop him for the moment; that gave me time to gather the evidence for the diffs, which I did.

Then, just as I was beginning to relax, NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted to RTS's (Giovanni's) version. I looked at his contributions, and saw that he also started today, and that this revert was his third edit, the first two being to his user and talk pages. I immediately blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I had refrained from blocking BelindaGong, Freethinker99, and RTS when they arrived, because I was involved in that article, even though there was every indication of sockpuppetry. However, I know that admins do block obvious sockpuppets to pages they edit themselves — I've seen it happening for example with AD/CE wars — and there are just too many "brand new" users who appear, revert to Giovanni's version, argue for his version on the talk page, and otherwise show familiarity with Wikipedia. This is the first time I've ever blocked anyone from an article I was involved with, other than pure vandals, and if an admin undoes my block, I will accept that, and will not in anyway consider it to be "wheelwarring". My block was just a quick reaction to the beginning of another war.

I'd like some feedback, advice, and if possible, some active intervention. If I was wrong to block NPOV77, I will accept that meekly! I don't actually approve of IAR, but am not sure to what extent the "don't-block-someone-you're-in-dispute-with" policy applies when, yet again an obvious sockpuppet turns up after another one has been blocked. I think my quick reaction was partly a result of all the trouble I've had simply because I didn't block Belinda, Freethinker, and RTS on sight. If other admins say I was wrong, I promise I won't get belligerent. And I won't wheelwar. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I've semi-protected the page in case any others turn up. I'd say you were right to block given how obvious the sockpuppetry was. I'll keep the page on my watchlist and I'll help you if any more of them arrive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My (non-admin) opinion: Let's suppose for the sake of argument that all of these new users, as well as Giovanni, are telling the truth and are not sockpuppets which is utter bullshit, but bear with me for a second. By their own words, they are nevertheless clearly in the related category of meatpuppets and can thus be treated exactly like socks. Block 'em. PurplePlatypus 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Entertaining situation! I'll help out if I can. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Another (albeit non-admin) opinion: I think you were certainly in the right here. You showed some admirable restraint in not blocking the second (or third, or fourth, or however many sockpuppets there are here) sockpuppet on sight, and there's just a point where enough is enough, especially when they make it so obvious. I've actually seen posts about this situation before and I'm sorry to hear it's still ongoing. Hopefully something can be done to help you (and the Christianity article) out. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also non admin and am often on the "other side" to Ann on debates about this page. I sometimes even agree with Giovanni33. However these "socks" were so blatant (using edit summaries etc like pros) that I think Ann did exactyt the right thing. Chaos is not good for constructive discussion and these constant edit wars are a waste of everyone's time. If someone would teach me how to easily revert to a previous version I will help out if needed. SOPHIA 12:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I am an Admin, and if I weren't late getting out the door this morning I'd go digging for a barnstar for forbearance and patience beyond the norm and put it on your page. You did precisely right; if they feel they have a case they can protest on their talk pages and it can be looked into more thoroughly. Would someone who has time please give this long-suffering Admin a barnstar? or I'll do it later - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I look at it, the blocks can come from the "involved" admin because, essentially, they are not blocks of new instance. If, let's say, some child were to set up 3 accounts and vote for himself/herself/itself on FAC and get blocked for that, then, when that child set up five new accounts to evade the blocks, they could each be blocked indefinitely. They're not being blocked indefinitely for new offenses, but for not serving out the original offense. Some people never figure it out. As Geogre the Wise says: Wikipedia is not the venue for negotiating ultimate truth nor the secret history of the world. They have Usenet for that. Geogre 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Images in the Kelly Clarkson article

I've left several messages on the talk page of HeyNow10029 (talk) concerning images that he/she uploaded. Each one lacks a fair use rationale, and despite being informed of the policies at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Images, the user continuously reinserts the removed images. On one occasion in the edit history of the Kelly Clarkson article, the user wrote: "Image is fair use screenshot and should not be removed for copyright reasons, if you think there's a copyright problem get an admin to sort it out". This is rather peculiar — are they stating that removing the image from the article would qualify as copyright infrigment? Unfortunately, I am not aware of all of the guidelines regarding images and screenshots, however, another user, WAS 4.250, explained to him/her that the images did not justify as fair use. HeyNow10029 has been repeatedly insisting that because numerous other articles include images lacking fair use rationale, the Kelly Clarkson article should as well. I cannot locate the logic in this mess that has been created, but could someone help me with the situation? The current discussion between myself and this user is taking place here.

Since this predicament began, there are now several IP addresses (presumably devoted Kelly Clarkson fans) who have started reverting the new images that directly relate to the article to the former ones, which currently include questionable fair use rationale (with only two concerns). I would really appreciate it if someone more familiar with the image criteria would participate in this incident, because I can't promote the article with the current state. It may also be notable that several IPs are including patent nonsense and restoring vandalism. Any help would be appreicated. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:26, 6 March 200

Geni has stepped in to attempt removing the "fair use" images. However, IPs have once again been constantly reinserting them. Since I've nothing better to do, here is a run-down of the edits that have commenced in the last twenty minutes:

Geni, "rm "fair use" image not being used for "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents""

Geni, "rm "fair use" images that are not "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents""

Eternal Equinox, "Placed appropriate image"

205.188.116.136, "identification ... (of a) ... program and its contents". The contents of the programs being screengrabbed are Kelly Clarkson, who is being indetified in this article. Thus fair use"

Geni, "nice try but even if we accept that logic it fails on the "critical commentary" part"

Interesting, this situation is spiraling out of control. Seriously out of control. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you claim that each of the images lacks a fair use rational yet as you can see, this page [[65]]is full of hundreds of images, screenshots like the images I uploaded, the majority of them only have the screenshot tag very few of them go further then that in providing fair use rationale. I've asked you before in my talk page how it's possible that those images (many of which were uploaded months ago on heavily-visited pages) qualify as fair use, yet the ones that I uploaded do not. Yet you don't give me an answer and then you complain when I re-insert the image. You seem to think you're better then us 'devoted Kelly Clarkson fans', so much so that you can't even give me a reason for the changes you make. I guess I'm just supposed to accept the changes you make as gospel. You yourself say you are "not aware of all of the guidelines regarding images and screenshots", yet you could have fooled me with the way you police the page and constantly revert everyone else's changes as if we were foolish children that needed to be carefully watched over. I would love an admin to finally look at those pictures and give us an answer. HeyNow10029 03:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

HeyNow10029, I'm going to attempt to remain civil, but I am tired of you shoving words into my mouth. I didn't say that I was better than you, and I don't think that you are a foolish child. I would certainly appreciate an admin to step in because this edit warring has continued for far too long. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're the one putting words in my mouth. I never wrote you said you were better then anyone else, just that it was my opinion you thought you were better then everyone else from your patronizing attitude and hawkish control of the pages. And I stand by that, 100%. HeyNow10029 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It may have been an opinion, however, you stated it: You seem to think you're better then us. Therefore, I accept it in terms that you believed so and did not solely hold it as an opinion. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There has recently been a growing feeling among admins that a project-wide effort to cut back on fair use images is necessary. Mostly this has been done in fits and starts so far, and as you point out, there are hundreds of images still being used without any kind of fair use rationale. However, I don't see this as a defense for any particular image--sooner or later we're going to get around to those hundreds, but yours happens to have come to our attention a little sooner. See Wikipedia:Fair use review for more information. Chick Bowen 03:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a cut-back because there are many situations (including this one) that need to be sorted out. I'm positive that it would benefit Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

64.12.116.6 states: "rmvd sice u been gone image it is not rock-influenced it is rock music". Does this qualify as an appropriate ground to remove an image including fair use rationale? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII

I believe User:RJII violated his ArbCom probation by violating 3RR. As I'm pretty new at this admin job could some else see if he should be banned for a year from Anarcho-capitalism? Cheers, —Ruud 03:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Which ban are you talking about, if he's only being disruptive on a single article (or small set of articles) then under the arbcom injunction he can be banned from those articles for a year, if he's being generally disruptive then he can be hard banned for a year by order of the arbcom probation that RuuD posted above. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant banned from editing anarcho-capitalism where he violated 3RR. —Ruud 05:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Alibabs and the userboxes

I'm not sure if this was brought up anywhere else but It's really getting harder and harder to assume good faith with this editor. He has no clear intention on creating an encyclopedia. All of his edits are basically POV pushing on the userbox war which is now taken to a whole new level of WP:POINT violation.

Since February 14th all this user has been doing is creating more frustration and problems on Wikipedia. All his edits are now consistant tagging userboxes and voting for thier deletion on thier respective TFD which he makes. All his TFD nominations explanations were listed as "Divisive userbox". Most, if not all, of his nominations were not granted. He also previously tagged userboxes under T1 violations, but all were removed or overturned, and if any of the userboxes were deleted it's probably put up on WP:DRV/U now.

Today, earlier, is what really did it for me. Alibabs created both Template:User Nazi and Template:User AntiPalestine and then listed, one of them, on WP:TFD as once again listing them as a "Divisive userbox". If anything this user should be blocked for blatently violating WP:POINT among other things. Moe ε 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In this post to TFD he apologizes for offending anyone and admits to be making a point. I;m not sure we should block him now he stopped, but I do think we should put him on some informal probation to stop this from happening again. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this editor hade gotten away with to much to not even recieve a warning. Thanks Mgm. Moe ε 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He had what can pass as a warning from me [66] when I bulk reverted his very first session. -Splash^talk 01:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this fellow probably deserves to be investigated with a view to blocking as a role account used for trolling. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Heja Helweda, Diyako, Aucaman

These users pass fake information as fact. Without verification at times. Diyako also invites other vandals such as user:Inanna, who has a track record of negativity and problems with the information to join in discussions knowing that they would distrupt order and the established wikipedia system. They are very underhanded and see themselves as the suprme authoritizes. They say something but act in another way. Many people have constantly argued with them and tried to fix articles, but they simply wait them out and then do what they want. Also user:Aucman has harassed and threatened me. 69.196.139.250 05:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

possible unauthorized bot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Pschemp

I can't tell if this is a bot; if you don't think it is, let me know, and I'll try to resolve this with pschemp. Seems a lot of the recent edits have been moving pages from "<foo> U.S. <bar>" to "<foo> United States <bar>". I haven't investigated thoroughly, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the pages beforehand. Further, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) seems to suggest that "U.S." is preferable, or at least acceptable. (This was recently discussed on Talk:United States Virgin Islands and a standard of "<foo>, U.S. Virgin Islands" was implemented for all of those articles.) --Gruepig 09:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, she isn't a bot. At all. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:55 UTC (2006-03-06)

U.S. Virgin Islands is a pretty standard term for that possession. What was debated there doesn't necessarily apply to other usages of "U.S." --kingboyk 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Block Request

user 194.154.22.55 has been repeatedly vandalizing the Friday the 13th page. I noticed that he has been blocked before, a few times. I request that you permanently block that address, because it seems that these partial blocks are not doing the trick to curve his/her attempts at vandalism.Bignole 12:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• According to this page the IP is allocated to a network, meaning an indefinite blocking would also ban several innocent people along with the vandal. Blocking IP addresses is specifically against policy unless the are proven to be open proxies. I'll investigate and do a smaller block if appropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 72 hours (24 added to the length of the last block) for ignoring all previous warnings. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I AM (talk · contribs)

Can anything be done about this person? His account seems to exist purely as a vehicle to abuse other editors and disrupt Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention pagemove vandalism. I blocked him for 1 week--let us know if he doesn't improve after that. Chick Bowen 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

See also Queeran (talk · contribs). The User name itself is problematic, the person's User page is racist, and the User's edits are racist. I will be warning him/her about their edits, but an indefinite block would not be out of line. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is the potential for some editors to be offended by the combination of the name "I am" and the capitalization, as it could be taken to reference the English "translation" of the tetragrammatron, YHWH. If it were God or G-d, we would block; if it were I am or I Am, we would probably let it slide. I'm unsure of whether or not this crosses the line. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Any permanent block imposed right now would be controversial in my mind...how about this? We leave a little message on the userpage saying that the username is potentially controversial, and we'd really appreciate it if the user would consider choosing another one instead. We say that it is to the benefit of the editor that they pick a more neutral name, one which does not have these potentially offending connotations. How about that? We have no other clear guidelines to follow, other than to express our feelings and reservations in this case. Of course, being overly diplomatic may not be too helpful - personally, I'm not too concerned with the username. There are plenty more out there which are active and are more controversial than that. --HappyCamper 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This one is going to be fun; he posted the {{unblock}} template with a rant about racist admins. I've extended him to two weeks for being clueless in the face of a block for incivility, but the pagemove vandalism really should get him indefblocked just like any other pagemove vandal. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You've now threatened me and continued harassing people, so I'm sure you won't behave in good faith. It's just as well I come here irregularly these days. Queeran

Queeran (talk · contribs · count)

I've blocked Queeran for vandalism (reverting a revert and using "rvv"), NPOV violation, and as a possible sockpuppet of Enviroknot. This is not confirmed, but on IRC it was brought up that there was a strong possibility it's the same user. I've indef blocked, pending review by other admins, and a possible RFCU. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:37 UTC (2006-03-07)

I've blocked I AM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef as a confirmed sockpuppet used for abusive editing, and added a note to User talk:Queeran that unblocking should not be granted (he has a history of abusing the {{unblock}} template). I've also protected both pages, as they were being used for further attacks. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:205.213.5.250

205.213.5.250 (talk · contribs) is vandalizing again. Can an admin keep an eye on him/her? -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Next time, you might want to list at WP:AIV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I learn something new every day. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Me-Calabi (talk · contribs). first edit responding to the IfD for an image uploaded by a previous sockpuppet (note personal attack against me in the edit summary). Also, this edit using an image that another one of his sockpuppets uploaded. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Someone please block this user. Now he's vandalising my user page. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Someone else please do the notification on his talk page and undo his vandalism -- I've got to run. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

extreme anti-Arab hate messages?

Someone posted to my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Khwarizmi&diff=42502059&oldid=42453735 This user(Iranian Patriot) has been sending out extreme anti-Arab hate messages like these, completely un-sourced, fabricated propaganda, and have nothing to do with the subject matter. He just put it to bait in users for a flame war...can something be done about this?...

I'm not really sure what consitutes hate messages, though it looks pretty unpleasant to me. Guidance? William M. Connolley 20:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not very pleasant, but not vandalism, hate speech or even incivility in my opinion. I say keep an eye on him/her but do nothing now. Just stating, arguable, facts and making an argument. Just my OP.Gator (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the usual racist crap. I'm going to try to asking this chap to stop it. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See here. I hope he'll respond positively. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Severe vandalism on todays featured article

I've had to sprotect Barbara McClintock twice tonight due to severe vandalism from multiple sockpuppets. Please keep an eye.--File Éireann 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we have strong policy not to sprotect articles linked from the main page. Secretlondon 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I rvv'ed a couple of times before. I will add to my watchlist and keep an eye. I will rm the sprotect ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is right. Please do not protect the front page featured article, ever. See User:Raul654/protection for an explanation. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism IP's I have encountered so far today

By no means complete:

• 192.149.109.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - on Norwich University
• 198.237.84.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.250.162.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - on Ma$e
• 209.208.78.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - on Shi'a Islam
• 69.37.121.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - on 1918 in music
• 70.89.123.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)- on Shirley Chisholm and Booker T Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangerInParadise (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Edited for format by Ryan Delaney

Thanks for the vandalism reports. In the future, these should go to WP:AIV or WP:VIP though. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, use WP:AIV for simple clear cut vandalism, and use WP:VIP for vandalism that is complex, and requires much investigation. If you are unsure, just go with WP:AIV :D --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Hijoli Cribi!

Hijoli Cribi! (talk · contribs)

This User has been creating tons of hoax articles and edits about nonexistant Myst games and concepts, and was not only edit warring and violating 3RR frequently, but deleting warnings from his Talk page and being uncivil in edits and edit summaries. I have blocked for 31 hours and warned that more will be forthcoming if he doesn't reform. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Druiken (talk · contribs) has been adding content relating to Hijoli Cribi's myst articles to existing myst articles. Every one of the user's contributions relate to the fictional myst game somehow. Sigh. -- Vary | Talk 02:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Photosynthesis Man

I have a suspicious feeling that Photosynthesis Man (talk) is a reincarnation of User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires (talk). Their contributions are similar, and both added tags to the Kelly Clarkson article when unnecessary. Also, both accounts edited Girls Aloud.

Tags added without explanation: At Kelly Clarkson as Photosynthesis, At Kelly Clarkson as Harry Potter and the Gold Fries

—Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. All edits were vandalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 65.96.160.248

"Wikistalking" by anonymous IP -- removes my edits on several unrelated articles. [67]

Justforasecond 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. --kingboyk 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is clear incivility in the edit summaries and evidence of wiki-stalking. Seems to be an IP who has found their way round Wikipedia remarkably easy. As I am a new admin I have blocked for 1 hour and ask that a more experienced admin review my decision and consider extending (or removing) the block if need be. --kingboyk 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He had stopped editing an hour before your block, so presumably the situation is over. If he returns, he can be slapped with 24-48hrs. -Splash^talk 01:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 65.3.250.153 / User:1liberator legal threats

From Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army: "Wikipedia is also a Florida not-for-profit corporation, so venue is proper in Florida courts. I never had a blog; I won many Judgments, however. The issue, is, therefore simple: do you agree to co-operate, do you agree not to delete my factual contributions, or do we need to take the dispute to a formal (Wikipedia) level immediatelly?" This seems a pretty obvious legal threat. The user in question is (yet another) POV-pushing nationalist whom I've been, probably rather optimistically, trying to educate in the ways of NPOV. He seems to have escalated to legal threats remarkably quickly. As I could be interpreted as being "in dispute" with this user, I'd be grateful if someone else could take the necessary action. -- ChrisO 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:1liberator and 65.3.250.153 are the same user - he seems to have forgotten to sign in for his latest contributions. -- ChrisO 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I have warned the editor against future comments that could be construed as threatening legal action and opted not to block at this time. If additional or more explicit threats are forthcoming, bring it back up and I'll issue a {{threatban}}. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Serial copyright violations / re-uploads / sockpuppeting

User:Nestore has repeatedly been uploading numerous copyvio images of the Yugo car, as I noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76#User:Nestore. On investigating this, I found that some of the images in question have been through IFD and speedy deletion up to five times previously, over a period of four months, but have repeatedly been re-uploaded by Nestore despite repeated warnings not to do so. In view of this, I've blocked him indefinitely per WP:COPY#If you find a copyright infringement ("In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.")

He has since used two sockpuppet accounts, User:NestorYugo and User:Yugo65efi, to evade the block and re-upload the copyvios yet again, along with fresh copyvios. I've indefinitely blocked both of the sockpuppet accounts as well as speedily deleting the images.

Unfortunately he's been up to the same tricks on the Serbian Wikipedia, which includes all of the copyvios in a gallery at the end of the Yugo article there - see sr:Југо (аутомобил). Does anyone have admin permissions on the Serbian Wikipedia to get rid of the images from there as well? -- ChrisO 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Does sr.wiki even have admins (many of the smaller ones don't)? You could ask a steward to help out if not--that's all I can think of. Chick Bowen 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)