Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) at 05:43, 12 March 2006 (→‎User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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



    Reporting User:Mcorcoran for Incivility

    I responded to a recent change on the Ivy League article at 21:59, 11 March 2006 by User:Mcorcoran where he claimed that he would take legal action "As an administrator of the University (of Pennsylvania)"against a fellow user.[1]. I responded to his claim by pointing out that he should not threaten legal action as an administrator of UPenn especially when he is not one as evidenced by his User Bio. my response (User:Mcorcoran's bio). He has responded to me with a threatening message on my user talk

    <<Please do not get upset. You are insecure about the fact that you attend a low ranking state school (ok half state school) . Other than the open green spaces, your campus looks ugly. Cornell's buildings are absolutely awful. Also, hate to break the news but Cornell was not even around during the Colonial period. Just because you could not get into one of the Ancient Four (Penn, Harvard, Yale and Princeton) does not mean you can make rude comments. Grow up. Just to let you know Cornell is named after one of my ancestors. Oh, knowbody uses "UPENN" (only low class non WASPs); its "PENN.">>[2]

    I find his comments to be threatening and incivil--Xtreambar 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by User:68.109.154.125

    I removed this users external link on the Photoblog article because they only had 6 photos on there and thought it NN. They sent me this email: 

    From:   	 "y control" <xxx>   	   	  	  Date:  Friday, March 10, 2006 4:12 AM
To: 	xxx
Attachments: 	(none) 	  	HTML | Plain Text | Header | Raw Content
hey, thanks for being an ass and deleting my link off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoblog

    and added the link [http://sharks.devgirl.ca/] back to the page. JohnRussell 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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. [3] [4] --ManiF 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]


    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. [5]Heja Helweda 00:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]


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

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

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

    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[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]


    On behalf of all editors who support this action, I would like to say, unfortunately we strongly disagree Zora. With all due respect, you cannot use Wikipedia as a political platform, nor hide under the notion of a minority group, or as neutral users, when for the [past year and a half], you and the other three users try to insert some enormously controversial political issues, or some hypothesis that is not universally backed by [one] major source like a major encyclopedia, and then refuse to compromise on the issue that the over-whelming consensus agrees with. You four users simultaneously revert articles, put numerous banners on articles, and engage in edit wars, while flooding the discussion pages of these articles with an excessive amount of texts, sucking-in all the other editors, forcing them to defend their writings which are always backed with multiple references. After proving proof to you, you gives responses such as, “Dictionaries and encyclopedias are not reliable guides to contemporary academic standards. They are inevitably behind the times”[7]. The mediators from whom we asked for help, all attest to that. Moreover, that is unfair to label all the editors who edit in articles about Persia or others, anti-Arabs, “Iranian-Editors”, or even “Iranian-Terrorists”, implying some sort of biasness. I have provided proof of such talk in the above sections already. You and the other three users start a dispute, forcing all the other editors that had agreed to a consensus to come and justify their edits, and provide you with their references, again and again and again. Also, just to be clear, not all of these editors are Iranian themselves, and some of us have keen interest and knowledge about ancient civilizations such as Rome, Persia, Greece, and Egypt. While your edits may be fine if you are writing a newspaper article, nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, and that is not appropriate. You don’t have to be pro or anti anything; rather, only on the side of the facts. Zora, it seems that over 98 percent of [your] edits have to do with some sort of pro-Islamic, pro-Arab articles. And, unfortunately your edits, such as for example, trying to change the heritage of the beloved worldly renowned Sufi poet Rumi from Persian to simply Muslim, even though many of these editors have provided you and others with numerous references such as encyclopedias that unanimously state that poet is Persian, reveals some sort of a hidden agenda. Or, better yet, to this date, without discussion, many, many times you erased and keep repetitively erasing an [entire section] in the Islamic conquest of Persia article[8][9][10][11], without even discussing it with [anyone], without providing one single source, and even though as a so called “neutral” user, you know well that in order to be fair, we must present both sides of an argument in an article. You then go to that article again, and change some simple words that afterwards make the article sound differently; it makes it into an almost one sided, pro-Islamic propaganda. Such subtle changes of a few words that have an impact on the language of an article are called “weasel words” in Wikipedia. You inserted some info that the post-Islamic Persia had been basically “Arabized”, and in so many words you stated, there no longer be a so called Persian culture. Of course these are just two examples, however, there are records in the history pages of your talk page, as well as the talk pages of the three users in question that show you have repeatedly tried to ask each other for help, and called good intentioned editors (some with academic degrees in history), “Iranian Nationalists”, “terrorists”, etc. As the history of you talk page also shows Zora, you have tried to always back-up the other three users, and even asked these other three users in question to help-you-out on articles you feel that are not going your way. Although there is nothing wrong with users agreeing on a subject, however, in this case clearly the other users like Heja Helweda, and Aucaman did not have any knowledge of the content of some the articles you asked help for, and they simply rushed to your aid. That actually [is] pushing one’s POV, and trying to go against a consensus that was already established by some editors. You, along with these three editors have inserted sections like for example `Genetics Test on Kurds`, that is not backed by [one] major source such as an encyclopedia, into articles about Iranians. Not only articles like that should not be put into an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, at least not yet, but also you had made 3/4 of that entire Iranian people article, flooded with some info about the Kurds, and that Genetics Test. When others tried to request that valid references be provided, and/or to kindly move that section to an article about the `Kurds` perhaps, you and these three users teamed-up again, and an edit war ensued on almost [all] articles that have anything to do with Persia. Despite requests for a third opinion, which we did on many of these articles, despite setting-up a Mediation Cabal, and despite providing numerous references to you Zora, user Aucaman, user Heja Hlwelda, and user Diyako, all of you four users refused to compromise, and instead started almost vandalizing other articles. Please know that, we sincerely believe that these three users and you Zora [are] using Wikipedia to push some political agendas, and are at best abusing your editing privileges. And, while we do not want to have the banning of any user on our conscious, we can now honestly say the only remedy for these misuses of editing privileges here is to block or ban these three users, and again, you as well Zora. Please be aware that users who try so hard to push a POV, cannot work with others, and perhaps may be blinded by their passions, and this regrettably is not an ideal environment to write an encyclopedia in. Users like you just end-up driving away editors who have something legitimate to contribute to these articles.Zmmz 07:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I agree with Zmmz's comments. I'd also like to point out that this is not about minorities or minorities' right or anything like that, as I am myself half-Kurdish and half-Azeri and none of the users filing this complaint are homogeneous by ethnicity, that's just Zora's assumption or accusation. We are not at all concerned about minority viewpoints in Iran-related articles, on the contrary we encourage such viewpoints because many of us are Iranian minorities or not even Iranian. Disrupting the Iran-related articles on wikipedia and using wikipedia as a platform to pursue a political agenda, is what we are against. If you take a look at those three individuals' "contributions", you can see a clear pattern of disrupting Wikipedia articles that are about Iran or Iranians. --ManiF 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, note that Zora often interjects her own personal opinions into articles, without even bothering to add a source. [12] She has also deleted almost the entire content of the Khuzestan article in the past without discussion [13] [14] [15] [16] Note also that for many edits she does not cite sources, yet is prone to attack other editors for their not citing sources (even when sources have been cited). [17] I could go on and on but there are too many diffs to provide here and they go back a long time. She continues to make personal attacks, while ignoring the behavior of others who are not Persian or Iranian - when an editor who see views as a minority makes unsourced claims or injects personal opinion into an article, she quickly looks the other way and remains silent. I myself am only half-Persian and yet she has attacked me constantly as a "Persian nationalist." The only way to deal with such a user to is to take the case to ArbCom. SouthernComfort 08:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This incident is being discussed at: Talk:Persian_people#Administrator.27s_noticeboard --Fasten talk|med 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    We just wanted to provide some diffs, in this case reverts and personal attacks by user Heja Helweda, since after apparently a stub in regards to `Turkish-Kurdistan` I believe was asked by some other users to be voted on for deletion, this user who seems to be a Kurdish political activist, now along with articles about Persia, he or she is actively involved in the political articles about the country of Turkey. It seems this is being done as some sort of weird vendetta, and this may demonstrate that such activism is not appropriate in Wikipedia. The diffs are, [18][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Turkey&diff=42589346&oldid=42376753][19][20][21].Zmmz 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Support for banning these vandals. They regularly damage articles pertaining to Iran and spread misinformation. --Houshyar 18:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as per Zereshk and SouthernComfort's reasons. -- Amir85 20:17, Tuesday 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Hmm.. An RFC would be more approporate, I'll be collecting necesary evidence against the people in question at User:Cool Cat/RfC March 2006. Anyone is welcome to assist. --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't claim to be an angel or perfect person, but I have been subjected to numerous personal attacks recently. I generally tend not to discuss these issues, but just for better clarification, I would like to provide links to personal attacks directed at me. Sometimes I have controversial views, not supported by many people, but I have never resorted to personal attacks. I look at wikipedia as a place to acquire knowledge and practice tolerance.
    Personal attacks by User:Zereshk:
    1. Saying that you hate Iranians is not a personal attack. It's a fact, plain and simple.[22]
    2. The level of anti-Iranian hatred you exhibit actually hurts many Kurds. and I'm not an ethnically driven bigot like you and your twisted friend[23]
    3. Every Iranian editor is insulted by your Iranophobia. Leave us alone[24]
    4. You have quite a hatred against Persia and Iran[25].
    5. A bigot by definition is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Im sorry, but that is exactly the behaviour you exhibit.[26]
    6. Edit summary of Iranian Kurdistan: I know you hate Persians. Take your hatred elsewhere [27].
    7. Please kindly retract your hatred of Iranians[28].
    8. they fucking hate Iran and Iranians from the bottom of their hearts? Mercenaries with an agenda to spread hatred against Iran on Wikipedia.[29]
    9. Every Iranian editor is insulted by your Iranophobia. Leave us alone[30].Heja Helweda 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • It is not about being an angel Heja Helweda, it is about the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, working on consensus, and it is not a political platform. Your contributions diffs, some of which are listed above, show an enormous amount of political activism by you. It just has no place in here.Zmmz 17:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    “For more examples of Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Wikipedia. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated.” AucamanTalk 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)][31][reply]


    “Regarding your edit here. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism” [32].


    “Yes, I don't like racist, inaccurate POV. Is there anything wrong with that?” AucamanTalk 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[33][reply]


    “What are you guys even talking about? Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article.” AucamanTalk 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[34][reply]


    “Just because you read something in your 2nd grade history book in some other language it doesn't mean you can put it in Wikipedia. See WP:NOR”. AucamanTalk 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[35][reply]


    “You don't know what you're talking about. Persian Jews are more than just Persian-speaking.”[36]


    “You don't know what you're talking about Kash. Aryan now means "Indo-European"? Is that really what you want to say? Or do you mean "Indo-Iranian"? Do you even know the difference?” AucamanTalk 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) [37][reply]


    “The problem is that the use of the word meaning "Indo-Iranian" is no longer in technical use and I've given enough evidence to support this. Your sources are outdated and not significant. You're just wasting my time” AucamanTalk 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[38][reply]


    “And what are my views? You don't even listen.” AucamanTalk 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[39][reply]


    "You asked for it. I tried to remove the false and racialist information, but you.....Some people here don't seem to understand the difference between a linguistic group and a racial group...."[40]


    “There........(such as myself) who don't blindly follow nationalistic race origin theories. I've been accused of being "anti-Iranian" here, but I think those self-appointed representatives of Iranians who are misrepresenting them are as anti-Iranian as one can be. Bad news for the real anti-Iranians: most Iranians today don't subscribe to racist theories imposed on them by outsiders. (Most of these theories about the origins the origins of Iranians were brought to Iran by Iranian scholars studying in Germany or German scholars visiting Iran.” AucamanTalk 04:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[41][reply]


    “#Oppose. Seems a little too interested in the politics of Wikipedia. We need more contributors, not power-grabbers. Relatively few Talk namespace edits”. AucamanTalk 05:01, 27 February 2006[42]


    “You're trying to point to valid interpretations of the word "Aryan" to somehow justify its racist interpretation. Not going to work”. AucamanTalk 04:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[43][reply]


    “There are a lot of stuff taught in the books in Iran that are not true. (They say that Iran is a true democracy and that United States is a dictatorship ran by Zionists.... You wanna go ahead and add these information into the respective articles?). A lot of stuff were written during the Pahlavi regime to create a sense of nationalism to counterbalance the Mullah's religious beliefs. Some of them still remain today. It doesn't mean they're true”.AucamanTalk 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[44][reply]

    “Hi. A number of users have tried to re-introduce the (racist interpretation of the) term "Aryan" into Iran-related articles such as Demographics of Iran, Persian people, and Iranian peoples.”[45]. Zmmz 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    “Merhaba, There is a dispute ongoing in the article Iranian peoples. Some Pan-Iranist users are changing the defintion of Iranian peoples (an unknown and not widely used term) from its linguistic meaning to linguistic, cultural and racial issues. According to their wrong defintion many people are labelled as Iranian, including parts of Turkish population. If you have time and are interested in the issue I ask you to join the discussion. Thank you very much.” Talk[46] Zmmz 06:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    “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 Talk + 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[47] Zmmz 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sasanjan 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC): I support! As an Iranian, I hate Racism or any kind misuse in Wikipedia, such moves must face strongest possible answers. Inactive their users untill real apologises from them.[reply]

    I am also an Iranian offended by User:Diyako, recently he has begun calling Iranian users 'Farsi', I am not sure what he is referring to, their ethnicity or language? If Iranian users are contributing in English, then I am guessing he is referring to their ethnicity. Calling users by ethnicity may sound racist to some, e.g. You don't call someone 'black', 'white' or 'african' or 'semitic' do you? These Kurds here do not like being referred to as Iranian, so we have no choice but to call them Kurd. --134.83.1.225 15:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)

    Also see page move log.

    Pages with incivil comments:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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] <freakofnurxture|talk>

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

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

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    You are considering that now that we've appeased, that he's moved like 4 other pages as well, starting wars there? All without consensus at WP:NC/NH? Also requesting permission to rollback the moves considering that they were all done without consensus.--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We have a centralized discussion open, have made MANY compromises and he is unyielding. He continues to act unilaterally against consensus with no room or compromise. He's un-Wikipedian.JohnnyBGood 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as a Wikipedian his 50k edits are nothing to your 150. It's agreeing with others that makes a Wikipedian, not e.g. WRITING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA - David Gerard 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having 50k edits doesn't give his opinion any more weight then a user with 2. Not when he's acting against consensus. Who does he think he is George Bush? JohnnyBGood 23:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone has an equal opinion (unless they're a vandal of course). People are entitled to have different opinions, you know. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And people justify this non-consensus moving of pages how? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is continuing. SPUI seems on a mission to go ahead with his own disambiguation methods, even adding pages for "City Name (ST)" contrary to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#North_America. While I appreciate that he is putting in an effort to build WP, his behavior regarding ignoring other editors in establishing standards thru voting and consensus, his blantant disregard for established guidelines, followed by his continued un-civil behavior makes working on these projects challenging to the rest of us to say the least. --Censorwolf 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
    There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
    There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
    There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
    There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
    There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
    There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
    There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
    --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Censorwolf didn't explain what he's talking about, I will. He's complaining about me making redirects like San Francisco (CA) to San Francisco, California in order to use with the pipe trick. I have been doing this for a long time. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, there IS nothing wrong with linking to a redirect, and that is not the issue. However, creating redirect pages to link to just because you prefer another name format contrary to accepted WP guidleines for location names IS inherently wrong. Just link to San Francisco, California like the rest of us do instead of creating a whole other non-standard page. --Censorwolf 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The wars have spread to New York. Please somebody do something! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am doing something, and you're going apeshit over it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What you have done to the New York pages, I have undone. Daniel Case 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently SPUI's approach is when he is in a disgreement with someone he targets pages that editor has worked on and applies his rude disambiguation rules in violation of concensus building. However, as long as there are also reasonable editors working on the road pages I am sure that sanity will prevail. --Censorwolf 03:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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.[48] He changed it immediately,[49] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Modern Persecution of Non-Christians

    I am moving this discussion here per the suggestion of Tom harrision. If these personal attacks are not repudiated, then I do want to go through all the formal dispute resolution steps, since obviously it's not stopping on its own, despite my pleading. Also, my wife has stopped contributing to Wikipeadia because she is being deny her existence as a full and separate person with equal rights to myself, not my socketpuppet. I'm willing to prove who she is, but no one is intersted in the truth. Giovanni33 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was banned from Wikipedai by MusicalLinguist afte he made a single edit supporting my version after I was blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NPOV77 on the basis of being accussed of being a socketpuppet. When I saw him, I was sure he would be accused of being my socketpuppet, but I was suprised he was blocked right away without a user check (so much for assusming good faith). But what really suprised me was that not only was he accused of being a socketpuppet, not only was he blocked indefinitely, but he was NOT accused of being MY socketpuppet! Guess who got blamed? Giovanni33!! They must really hate Giovanni33 to keep smearing his name like this. I guess they go after him since he has been their biggest ideological threat to the dominated Christian POV. I also noticed that my version that he supported was NOT Giovanni33's version. It's interesting that they can ignore this fact, go way in the past to dig up Giovani's history looking for dirt (repeating their version of events), in order to try to paint Giovanni33 in this negative manner, and using this as a pretext to attack others who do not toe the Christian line. About attacking Giovanni33--it's the repetition propaganda effect: keep repeating something over and over at every chance you get, and sooner or later enough people will start to believe it. Even if they really believed that NPOV77 was Giovanni33 (but not me?), I still don't see how that justified the blocked to say nothing of being banned. Is Giovanni33 currently being blocked for some reason what would mean any socketpuppet of his would likewise be blocked? Or is the problem here just one of Giovanni33 not being a Christian editor, and any editor who agrees with him must be done away with? This seems to me to be a major violation of Wiki rules and a major problem with this article. RTS 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'll check the history, you'll see that Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets relatively recently. I am not an administrator and don't have blocking powers, but if the administrators blocked you and/or NPOV77, they had good reason. It has nothing to do with attacking anyone and everything to do with the fact that Wikipedia policy has been violated in the past and has resulted in the complete disruption of this article. Gio's POV has never been an issue...what has been an issue has been his reverts to versions with little or no consensus and the utilization of sockpuppets in attempts to get around WP:3RR. Let's keep focused. To suggest that this is "persecution" shows that you haven't the faintest notion what persecution really is. KHM03 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If they did block, they had good reason? Is this more blind faith? Maybe someone can explain these good reasons since I can't think of any.Giovanni33 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The more things change, the more they stay the same. I've been very busy since last week and have not even logged in to check wikipedia. To my surprise, I see some similar nonsense going on in my absense. Well maybe it isn't nonsense given that it looks like my wikibreak/absense was seen as an opportunity to attack me while I was gone. How nice! I have not had enough time to see what has been goin on yet, but what I do see, I don't like. Its rather pathetic really. KMH03, why are you pushing these old lies? I don't have any socketpuppets! That is really old news, too. I won't repeat myself, again, nor should I have to, as this is rather old. Its interesting that no one wants to take me up on my offer to prove that BelindaGong is not me. I guess those who keep pushing these lies prefer to keep up the hoax so as to speculate and continue with the attempts to discredit me. I am sad to see that new users are still being attacked as well. Ill have to do some reading to see what is going on, but I was really hoping these nonsesne personal attacks against me would have stopped by now, as they did seem to calm down. I guess I was hoping for too much. Giovanni33 08:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Tom harison is involved in the accusations, against me, too, this time. And, ofcourse MusicalLinguist plastered the same socketpuppet allegations against me with all her characterizations as she usually does again. No suprise, there. Now I will have to track all this down and respond, as usual. Will it ever stop? Tom, I don't know if you really believe what you claim to believe, or you are just jumping on the bandwaggon intiated by MusicalLinguist, but you are wrong. I was away and am just now am coming back to read what amounts to more personal attacks against me.
    Why do you think this user is connected to me? I looked at the history of the Christianity article and my edits and his are very different. Granted, IMHO his edits are much better than what stands now (which is just back to what it was before any of my changes--all my contributions have been stripped away, it seems--and without consensus), but his edits are missing many things that I incorporated. Also, the language is different, my quotes are removed, etc. It seems to be more refined and trimmed down. Acceptable but not what I wanted. Still, just because an editor happens not to follow a traditional Christian POV, is that reason to block him, bann him, and then accuse him of being connected to me? I'd really like to see an honest explanation for this. What really puzzles me is what did he do to get banned? And by MusicalLinguist, no less? This seems a rather serious violation of standard procedure. I would like to see the theory behind this course of action.Giovanni33 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They were banned for substantially violating 3RR, not for their POV. As for Belinda, we know that your situation is "complicated". Str1977 (smile back) 08:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw that with RTS--3RR vio (funny name, don't you think STR?). But, NPOV77? He appears to be banned outright by your dearest friend MusicalLinguist, and yet, I do not see the reason for that. Certainly no 3RR that I can see. Am I wrong, or do you misspeak? Also, I still don't see what any of this has to do with Belinda or me. Why need our names be continuously dragged through the mud with these (rather old) false accusations and attacks? Giovanni33 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was wondering about the name. It makes me suspicious of this user, who despite his only recent arrival does seem to be quite aware of the disputes on this page and also with some tactics used by some editors. RTS certainly violated the 3RR. I have never encountered NPOV77, whose name makes me suspicious too.
    Where did I attack you here? Is my allusion to your "complicated situation" really an attack. But you must know best about it. Str1977 (smile back) 10:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not see you attacking me but clearly MusicalLinguist, Tom Harrision, and KM03 have all attacked me. Using someone in the context of a bad example is an attack. If you disagree, think about me going around and picking on something that you did once (maybe gave a wrong fact, something that makes you look bad), and then kept bringing it up as a negative example of what Str1977 did, explaining in detail all about YOU when the issue is something that has no connection to you. This is what others are doing with me still despite my protests. About the name being a partial anagram to yours, I will just assume good faith, but it does make it look fishy to me.Giovanni33 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gio - I mentioned the socks because you were blocked for using sockpuppets to evade WP:3RR. I am not an administrator and have no power to block anyone, so the block was not my doing...I merely used your example to correct the user who initiated this section, who was under the mistaken impression that you were blocked for your religious beliefs, which was not the case...you were blocked because an administrator felt you had violated WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. No lies, there...just truth (see here). KHM03 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so my name is being dragged through the mud once again just because I made a good example? How considerate--even though I have asked that this stop as I consider it a form of a personal attack on my reputation. Also, your excuse that I'm only being used as an example is not quite true. Clearly, I see you and others either allude indirectly or directly that I am connected with the violatating editor. This is not harmless speculation, either. Its an underhanded attack. Lastly, you are stating things as a fact, which I know is not true. You said, "Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets relatively recently." This is a lie. My wife, who shares my IP address used her own account, and she is not a socketpuppet. You may think that I am lying, but I've offered to prove otherwise, and yet no one wants this verified. Why? So you can keep repeating the lies under the cover of ignorance and the appearance of socketpuppetry that you can keep stating as a fact, even if only to use my name as an example? Lastly, you say "recently." Not really. Giovanni33 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By "recently", I meant last month...February 15, according to the block log. That's recent, in my view. I haven't muddied up your name...I simply corrected User:RTS who seemed to misunderstand the reason you were blocked. User:RTS brought up your name...not I. It could very well be that it's simply coincidental that several new users (including some proven socks) share your precise POV. If so, that's really unfortunate. But by using socks (see here to violate WP:3RR, you've honestly made it very difficult to assume good faith. I think that's the problem the administrators are having with the new users. At any rate, this is best discussed elsewhere, as it's doing very little to improve this article. KHM03 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try to wiggle out of what is happening. RTS is bringing up his suprise that user NPOV77 who favored his version was banned and accused of being me--not him. Then you state as facts your opinion about my past socketpuppets, even though it has nothing to do with this situation. So you are in effect defending the use of my name, these past incidents, and then characterizing it as a fact, instead of saying something to the effect, "yes, its terrible that Giovanni33 is still being blamed for things based on speculation and other users, when he has been a very good editor, making lots of useful contributions, and its not fair to him to keep using his mistakes when he first started as a club to beat him with.' That would have been the right way to respond. What you did was pick up the club to take some swings yourself. Thanks! Also, again, you do not tell the truth: the version that RTS and then NPOV reverted to was NOT my version, not my POV. They are different. But, I know its essential to link me to them in order to justify the attacks against me, but even this connection is not justified. But, also its wrong: any new user who does not adopt a traditional, conservative Christian POV will be essentially driven away. This harms the article and Wikipeaida.Giovanni33 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I wake up much too early, and I come across this talk page..... I have to say that I saw a clear abuse of administrator power. First off, NPOV77's first edit was not a revert, it was work on his/her user page. The first page edit was indeed a revert, which is discussed often on pages, and it is possible that the person had read it, having looked at Wikipedia for a long time before ever actually contributing. This revert was on March 5th, and the only revert by that person. Str made a revert, then Musical Linguist did, then Str did again (RTS had been adding in information that Str has been trying to remove.....) then Musical Linguist did again, then Tom Harrison made a revert, then RTS made a revert, then Musical Linguist made her third revert (accusing RTS of making 6 reverts, which I shall look into, but it seems that he was putting different text in and not actually reverting to an older copy) then RTS reverts again, then Str reverts for a third time, and then RTS reverts for what I believe to be the third time, and Tom Harrison reverts for the third time in a day, and then NPOV77 comes in and reverts, followed by Latinus reverting...... who seems to be clearly not a sockpuppet, having well over 100 edits.
    So we know that if NPOV77 is a sock puppet, it is to RTS, not Giovanni. If it were Giovanni's sock puppet, the revert wouldn't be against the rules at all. Indeed, It was at 15:44, March 5, 2006 that NPOV77 created their user page and at 15:47 that the revert was made, which does look very fishy, but possible innocence. Str reverted last at 13:53, and Tom Harrison reverted at 14:36.... This would be a 1hr8min break between this revert and the last, 1hr5min between when NPOV's account was likely created and this incident. So how fast does RTS respond? He reverted within 2 minutes of Tom, 2 minutes of Musical Linguist, and 4 minutes of Str. Such a long delay all of a sudden makes it hard to place the behavioral pattern on NPOV77, though I can certainly see a possibility with RTS being a pun on Str1977 as with the 77 repeating itself.
    But let us look at Sockpuppet policy... "However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia."
    further:
    "Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded."
    "If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related. Experience has shown that on article talk pages, including polls, the linkage is usually not supported by the information available to developers, so self-restraint in making such accusations is usually the right course."
    To the best of my knowledge, these precautions were not undertaken by MusicalLinguist, which makes it a very bad idea to ban an editor which may or may not be a sockpuppet. As an administrator, it would be very easy to have a checkuser see if the accounts were related. It is not illegal for a new user to have done that, even if they did know a lot. For all you know, it could have been a perfectly legitimate use of a sockpuppet by me, because you didn't check to see if the accounts were related to RTS or to me.
    I suggest the utmost care in the future, and don't forget, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting". The non-Christians have been pushed into the shadows, while str accuses NPOV to be a relativistic POV. You must incorporate their views in order to be NPOV, even if it's only mentioning that some people feel that this may be the case. There is no reason that anything controversial needs to be states as a fact. I'm still noticing a lack of citations as well, which is the one thing I suggested you get into check. Start with simple in-text citations while you get it hammered out. (Stein p. 78) (not a real citation)
    KV 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The place to discuss and review this is the noticeboard. Keeping it brief, NPOV77 (talk · contribs) and RTS (talk · contribs) were the same person. When, using a second account, that same person reverted, that was that person's fourth revert, violating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to contradict you, Tom, but assuming that NPOV77 = RTS, it wasn't that person's fourth revert, it was the ninth revert. RTS reverted eight times, and as soon as he was blocked, the brand-new user NPOV77 appeared and reverted to his last revert. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Was there a user check that confirmed they were the same person? My understanding was that no such user check was done as MusicalLinguist simply blocked that person indefinitely solely based on the fact that they supported the same version of the blocked person. Maybe he was a socket of the blocked person, but how can she assume the worst and then take this drastic against against the person based on making one revert? This seems descriminatory. For instance, if any new user reverted to her version after she just reverted 3 times, would she instantly bann the new user who just reverted to her version and then accuse herself of creating a socketpuppet to evade the 3RR rule? Ofcourse not. Also, I'm still not very happy that this is being used to attack ALL editors who do not adhere to the traditional Christian POV. I see that MusicalLinguist has copied and pasted the usual attacks against all editors. At least this time she removed reference to Sophia and TheShriek, but its not fair to all the other editors, including myself.Giovanni33 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to clarify my position, because it may be a bit muddled... I believe that RTS probably did make NPOV77 as a sock puppet, but it is not certain, and at most a very temporary block pending on a checkuser IP check should have been in place. Simply blocking the user with only conjecture (even hearsay is absent) and not immediately taking the proper steps to make sure it isn't a mistake is something that could have the effect of preventing a NPOV view in the article, and perhaps in many other articles the user may have contributed to in the future. Certainly, I have seen a false accusation of RTS reverting, when he was putting up revised versions of new text that others simply reverted, based upon the stated objections of the reverters. It seems that there is a bit of a bias on the part of MusicalLyricist that needs special attention when she uses her administrative power in regards to the article.
    KV 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of points:

    To Giovanni33:

    • Would I ban a new user who reverted to my version? I'm not sure what you mean by my version. I don't have a particular version. I have contributed very little new material to the article. Most of my edits have been grammatical, etc. or reverting a new, controversial edit which had been inserted without consensus. I have never inserted a pile of new stuff and insisted that it stay up despite the objections of others. You are the one who has been inserting entire paragraphs of new material, often inaccurate (Galileo was tortured, St Thomas Aquinas's teaching on transubstantiation was based on older, pagan religions with cannibalism), highly POV (despite Cyril's possible involvement in Hypatia's murder, he was later proclaimed a saint by the Catholic Church), and unproven but asserted (by you) as fact (Christianity grew out of "mystery religions"), plus efforts to link the evil deeds of nominal or lapsed Christians with Christianity itself (Hitler, etc.). So, no, I don't have "my own" version. I haven't taken large chunks of pro- or anti-Christian books and inserted their content into the articles. I have collaborated with the other editor, made suggestions, and done relatively little editing.
    • There were no newly-created (same month as the dispute) accounts that showed up to agree with Str1977, KHM03, Wesley, Tom harisson, me, and many others, or to revert to what you call "my" version, though, as I've said, I don't have my own version.
    • I am not attacking any editor. I am stating the verified fact that you reverted way over the three-per-day limit when you were new; that we were kind and didn't report you for several of these violations but instead patiently explained the rules and begged you to stop; that we reported you when you continued and continued and continued in full awareness of the rules; that BelindaGong appeared on Wikipedia as a new user and immediately reverted to your version, started voting for whatever you voted for, defending your version on talk pages, and going massively over the 3RR despite our initial indulgence, explanations, and pleadings; that you both pretended not to know each other, although you were asked many times; that MikaM and Kecik appeared as new users and started reverting to your version and following you to different pages to revert for you and vote for whatever you wanted; that a checkuser established a link between you and Belinda; that when you were both blocked, Freethinker registered, said he was new but agreed with you, immediately reverted to your version (several times), then accidentally answered a question in your name while logged on as you, then claimed that he did, after all, know you and that you were at his place and he had allowed you to use his computer; that RTS appeared as a brand-new user and reverted (including partial reverts) eight times, most of which reverts were to material that you had inserted last week, even if partially modified; that I sent him some messages explaining the rules rather than reporing him immediately; that as soon as he was blocked, another newly-registered account (NPOV77) appeared and reverted to his last revert.
    • A negative checkuser does not prove that someone is not a sockpuppet, as a single user can have access to different IP addresses. Other evidence can be used, such as your little slip up in forgetting to log off as Freethinker99, or (as in a case I remember) a user telling another user to look at his personal website, and giving the URL, then doing the same thing with another user under another name several months later, or excessive interest in the same articles combined with similarity of editing style. I don't actually expect that a checkuser would find a link between the two latest sockpuppets and you, as it seems you were away at the weekend (you've even said that), so you could have had access to an IP address that you had never used before. People who start reverting and voting as soon as they sign up are more likely to be accused of sockpuppetry.
    • I have never accused SOPHIA of sockpuppetry. It is true that her POV is much closer to yours than to mine, but I do not suspect people of sockpuppetry simply because they don't share the Christian POV. SOPHIA's behaviour has been completely different from yours from the start. Her husband, TheShriek, was checked because he was one of SEVERAL new users who agreed with you and voted with you. Since one of those users was found to be a sockpuppet, the checkuser request was clearly justified, and we had no way of knowing beforehand which ones we should include and which ones we should exclude. I am fully satisfied that TheShriek is not a sockpuppet, and even deleted and partially restored his user page so that the sockpuppet accusation would not appear in the history of it. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To King Vegita

    • You are incorrect in saying that I falsely accused RTS of reverts. A partial revert also counts, and I did make it clear when I reported him here that some of the reverts were partial ones. I also, in the interest of complete fairness, made sure that he knew that partial reverts and different reverts could also count. Giovanni has often made partial reverts, by inserting large chunks of "mystery cults" stuff, to which other editors object, and then changing a few sentences and reinserting it.
    • I and others have in the past blocked obvious sockpuppets without a checkuser. For example, a few months ago, a new user inserted "It's the true faith" several times into the Christianity article. He/she was blocked for 3RR, and then another brand new user inserted "It's the true faith", and then another, and another, and another. I and another admin were blocking as fast as we could, often after – guess what? – 'one revert, and eventually semiprotected the article. This went on for several days. I'd say we blocked dozens of them. And, for the record, I agree that Christianity is the true faith.
    • As regards my use of administrative powers in that article, my block of NPOV77 was the first instance, apart from the blocking of dozens of "true faith" sockpuppets.
    • As soon as was possible after the block of NPOV77, I reported it here for feedback, and was quite happy to accept criticism, and even the undoing of my block. I've also invited NPOV77 to try to convince me or others that he's not a sockpuppet.
    • I have seen other administrators blocking on sight when a brand new users reverts to the version of someone blocked for 3RR or sockpuppetry. I was aware all along that BelindaGong and Freethinker99 were connected to Giovanni, either as sockpuppets or as meatpuppets, and I also felt immediately that RTS was a sockpuppet, but I didn't block any of them on sight (or at all). I wasted large amounts of time patiently explaining the rules to Giovanni's suspected puppets, even though I was convinced they already knew them. I told them politely that they had violated 3RR, but that I wasn't going to report them. I begged them to stop. In fact, my reporting of Giovanni was the first 3RR report I ever made, and I had been on Wikipedia for ten months at that stage, and had often seen 3RR violated by people whose POV I opposed. There comes a stage when you just have to say, enough is enough. AnnH ♫ 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Netoholic

    Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, per ArbCom decision, banned from the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces. Today he decided to revert four of my edits on four different templates in violation of his ban (three of them in the span of 2 minutes), the other about 30 minutes ago–

    He's been blocked three times in the past week or so for these same violations, and he appears to have no intent at stopping. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked him for one hour. It's a technical violation at most. Stifle 15:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but it's disruptive in my view because I can't reliably work if he's off reverting everything I do. (Which seems to be the case so far). Worse, he's often reverting to templates that destroy the page for disabled readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it that way, to be honest. In particular, I'm not sure on how this destroys the page for disabled readers. Stifle 13:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You ignored the part where he just blindly reverts everything I touched. That's not disruptive? But to answer your question, take a look at User:Locke Cole/Don't use hiddenStructure where I explain the problem (and provide images to demonstrate it). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KDRGibby

    I have banned User:KDRGibby from editing Participatory economics for the period of one year, because of a 3RR violation. —Ruud 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to ask why a simple 3RR violation merits that, but then I looked at his userpage and wow. Ashibaka tock 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of his ArbCom probation. David | Talk 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the fair use images from his user page. Chick Bowen 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't appear to learn from his blocks. He has begun making reverts on fair trade and classical liberalism again. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    For good reason, you people are not consistant editors and you all put in and defend, pov original research and I ask for citations and proof and you can't provide it.

    I'm reverting liberalism because of constant deletion of cited relevant material.

    And trying to correct fair trade to reflect proper criticism instead of a supposed criticism section that does nothing but promote and support fair trade (While actual criticism is noticably absent!)

    I want admins for admins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Gibby 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    A vandal with dozens of IPs

    An anonymous editor employing a large number of IPs has been making continuous controversial edits and reverts of content at pages related with the history of nuclear power in Argentina. The most vandalized pages are Huemul Project and its talk page, but Ronald Richter, Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica, Instituto Balseiro and related ones have also received their share.

    I have compiled a partial list of IPs showing the same pattern of extreme subjective bias and repeated non-consensual edits: 200.43.201.50 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.95 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.137 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.143 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.152 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.184 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.251 (talk · contribs) | 200.43.201.253 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.10 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.15 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.41 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.72 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.88 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.131 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.134 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.140 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.207 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.243 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.244 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.6.252 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.16 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.71 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.130 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.155 (talk · contribs) | 200.45.150.180 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.43 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.95 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.124 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.137 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.18.167 (talk · contribs) | 200.82.88.214 (talk · contribs)

    The IPs in this list can all be found at one or another of the IP ranges traced by this query to LACNIC: <http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/whois?lg=SP&query=AR-MIDA2-LACNIC>. It is practically impossible to deal with vandalism from them with the usual methods, and the editor knows it.

    I have no idea where else to post this. Feel free to move it if it doesn't belong, but please advise on what to do. The established editors of those pages don't want to give them up to a vandal. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    You can try short-duration range blocks. The ranges seem to be: 200.43.201.0/24, 200.45.6.0/24, 200.45.150.0/24, 200.82.18.0/24. -- Curps 05:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WHOIS results for 200.123.178.246 Generated by www.DNSstuff.com

    Location: Argentina [City: Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires]

    I seems that the person who recently wrote personal attacks related with the Huemul Project page is Nkcs. See contributions of 200.68.127.154. Probably Nkcs or one of its partners logged with this IP after 200.82.18.5 to try to hide his misbehavior. 200.45.6.126 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) [50][reply]

    200.45.6.126 signning off now. Thanks. 200.45.6.126 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, Tony Sidaway wrote (both to OneEuropeanHeart and Pablo-flores) "I see no vandalism here". [51]

    --200.45.6.58 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism from 142.32.208.238 (talk · contribs)

    This IP recently vandalised Thirteen Colonies twice [52][53] You can see from this user's talk page User talk:142.32.208.238 that they have been warned for vandalism before. You can see from their user activity [54] that they have made many sets of vandalism, notebly here are some examples [55] [56]. SirGrant 19:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    More vandalism today after I posted my origional post here are some examples [57][58][59][60][61][62] SirGrant 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I had to unblock because of collateral damage. Please let's keep a very close eye on this IP. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    There appear to be several other closely associated IPs, all of which have long blocks on them:

    ARIN says: "British Columbia Systems Corporation"

    OrgAbusePhone: +1-250-952-6000
    OrgAbuseEmail: cschelp@gems3.gov.bc.ca

    A Canadian provincial government e-mail address, no less. -- Curps 05:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TheDoctor10

    TheDoctor10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I am a bit concerned over the recent contributions by TheDoctor10. He's been trolling around a lot recently, making personal attacks, personal threats, threats for disruption and general harrassment. Some example of this are:

    • After a dispute with ed g2s, he decided to change his signature to the following:
    --Someone who thinks User:Ed g2s is getting to big for his boots (talk)
    He was warned about this, and blocked for it. He still hadn't removed it when the block expired.

    Also see his talk page, Ed g2s's talk page (more specifically: [78] [79] [80]). He has been blocked at least 8 times, and once earlier today, for 3 weeks. I don't think this is enough, nor will it resolve the situation. Something obviously needs to be done. What do others think would be appropriate? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, — FireFox • T • 19:41, 8 March 2006

    At this point, I think that requesting arbitration is the only way to go. He already had an RFC, and numerous people have tried to explain to him why his behaviour is unacceptable. It's time to put a stop to this.--Sean Black (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we need to go to Arbcom with this when there are open and obvious threats of disruption? [81] --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, indef blocked as of now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have the stones that I lack. Good show. --Golbez 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I mainly issued the indef block because of the user's intent to disrupt WP, on purpose, to annoy khaosworks and other people and issuing threats to them. IMHO, that should not be tollerated on WP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No arguments from me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or me. I went over to leave a message on Khaosworks' talk page about something and noticed the one post in which the user clearly indicated his intent to disrupt Wikipedia once the second season started airing in the UK. 23skidoo 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cuba

    It seems to me that El C [[82]] appears to be trying to impose his political views on all material in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [[83]]. Please view [[84]] with especial attention to [[85]],[[86]], and [[87]]. Thank you for your time and attention El Jigue 3-8-06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.227.15 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, this doesn't belong here-it's a content dispute. Secondly, it seems to me that you espressed your disagreement with El C's edits with accusations regarding his political beliefs, which is not only irrelevant, but an assumption of bad faith. My advice is to discuss the article (not the subject of the editors) on the talk page in a civil manner. Cheers, Sean Black (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I see that you have a history of vandalism and biased, specifically anti-Communist, editing. While I of course support reform and education, that does not make me confident . In any case, I suggest that you review Wikipedia policies before editing further.--Sean Black (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Roadcruft sockpuppetry

    JohnnyBGood (talk · contribs) = Gateman1997 (talk · contribs). Best edit summary of the last hour: "JohnnyBGood 01:06 March 07 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 15 (rv to last version by Gateman1997 per consensus. Consensus trumps so called "common sense" on wikipedia.)" That's the initial datum from which I work out how much good faith to assume. Both are blocked indefinitely until I get an email saying which one he wants to be the "main" account, and the other stays locked. I'm sure this will brighten SPUI's evening - David Gerard 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I actually happen to agree with these two people... does this make me a sockpuppet too? And "I'm sure this will brighten SPUI's evening" puts a limit to the amount of good faith I can assume. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure David has enough evidence to prove that both accounts are used by the same person, right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you make this determination through CheckUser, David? android79 03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see heading at User talk:SPUI "A birthday present for you?" --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Read WP:SOCK. Both of these users have over 150 edits, and both have made substantial highway contribs. Did anyone check that first? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't matter how many edits each account has if m:CheckUser says they're the same person. android79 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except there's no checkuser reported yet. Also why are both accounts blocked? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, it seems that David's post above is the report, though he was a bit vague about it. android79 04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing the crime these chaps committed is 3RR, yes? --Golbez 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SPUI and JohnnyBGood, but not Gateman1997. All Gateman1997 did was have a controversial opinion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the notice says Gateman1997 was blocked for sockpuppetry -- which your comment ten minutes previously implicitly recognizes -- your omission of that little fact puts a limit to the amount of good faith I can assume. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ommission of a) the already stated (above) and b) the false. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So wait... there is no debate, no discussion, etc. regarding this? This is totally unjust here. Read User talk:SPUI and User talk:Gateman1997. Also if this was a sock then why weren't the proper notifications and/or templates used? Also emails and messages to David Gerard have gone unanswered. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gerard has no valid email. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    His e-mail address appears on his user page. Raven4x4x 11:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh? Doesn't look like definite sockpuppetry to me, just two misguided contributors. Is there checkuser evidence? [88] and [89] seem to roughly match (though not as much as RickK and Zoe - that's interesting to look at), so it's definitely possible, but I'd expect many users to have roughly the same "editing profile" like that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone who wishes to remain anonymous has shown me some evidence:
    JohnnyBGood 01:35 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) (?Battle of Hogwarts)
    JohnnyBGood 01:48 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Chase Field
    JohnnyBGood 02:41 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wintel (?Alternatives to Wintel - Mactel is only used by a small subset of anti intel mac nerds.)
    Gateman1997 03:13 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) (?Battle of Hogwarts)
    Gateman1997 08:50 February 22 2006 (hist) (diff) Interstate 93 (Probably the second most important junction on I-93 is its junction with 95.)
    JohnnyBGood 19:18 February 22 2006 (hist) (diff) Interstate 93
    Still not conclusive, but worth a checkuser. This could have been avoided if David Gerard actually said he ran a checkuser or gave other evidence. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also hey um theres' a thing called Special:Contributions? Maybe one took a look at the other's contribs. I'll admit to having done that before. It's interesting to see how many people have the same interests too. I've run into a few Mac-using roadgeek tech-loving Christian Wikipedians on this site. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoe and RickK are not sockpuppets of eachother. Compare [90] and [91]. Please try to be a bit careful when accusing people of being sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please try to be a bit careful when accusing people of accusing people of being sockpuppets. I in no way said they are sockpuppets, just that their editing patterns make it look that way. [92][93] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be careful when accusing people of accusing people of accusing... ah what the heck. I've lost the count. Please be careful about making people lose count. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, what? I use AOL, I don't see how anybody is going to be able to show any sort of sockpuppetry even if it were true, which it isn't. Somebody else (an anon who created an account just to make the accusation) made the same comment on my Talk page the other day, I have no idea why they are claiming this. I don't understand why someone would assume that I'm RickK, but I can say categorically that I am not. Is RickK even still editing? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The suspicion was roused by the lockstep edit-pattern matches (compare their contribution histories, and particularly compare their votes), then a checkuser, then putting all their contribs with timestamp into a spreadsheet and seeing what the pattern was. The user has attempted to be clever to evade detection by checkuser - David Gerard 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So what your saying is that checkuser came up blank, right? I cannot help but recall the regretable episode of sockpuppetry accusations regarding User:TheChief. - brenneman{T}{L} 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell, I was blocked a while ago for suspected sockpuppetry:
    15:32, 11 July 2005 David Gerard unblocked SPUI (contribs) (I was wrong - my sincere apologies to SPUI)
    13:53, 11 July 2005 David Gerard blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (sockpuppeteering with "Wikipedia Vandalism Warning Bot" and all the "Fonzie" users. Well done, most amusing.)
    It would be nice for the evidence to be public.--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also check out User talk:David Gerard- he never mentions a checkuser. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gateman1997 has sent me an email. Part of it is as follows:

    The only argument I would state is that, "I'm not a sockpuppet of JohnnyBGood. I never have been. I've interacted with him on a few of the CA highway articles resisting SPUI's changes, but that's it. And I would also state that the fact that the accuser stonewalling any attempt at contact is VERY suspect. Especially when he admits he has no evidence but his own misguided suspicions after the checkuser failed. I just want to get back to contributing to the project positively as I always have."

    --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the correlation between edits equating to sockpuppetry here. Let's see the spreadsheet analysis and how the conclusion has been deduced or jumped to. --Censorwolf 14:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay just realized something... if JohnnyBGood is a sock of Gateman1997 then why the heck did Gateman1997 report JohnnyBGood at WP:AN/3RR for 3RR? Also, why does JohnnyBGood keep getting 3RR violations if he can just use the Gateman1997 account to evade 3RR? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking

    As it seems that no administrators are interested in taking action regarding this matter and doing the right thing, I am forced to take action myself. The blocking administrator, David Gerard, has not provided much evidence to the accusation that the users Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood are sockpuppets. A CheckUser regarding this matter has given negative results, as implied above by David Gerard and deducted by another user whose comment is above as well. It has been difficult for the blocked users to contact him since his "Email this user" link is not enabled (another user had to notify me of the fact that his email is listed on his user page). When the blocked users contacted him via email, they did not receive a prompt response; in fact, they had to wait hours for a response. There is evidence at WP:3RR to the fact that they are not sockpuppets. Also, these contributors were not properly notified of their block with the correct templates. However, the blocking admin subsequently made what can be deemed as "celebratory comments" to user SPUI User talk:SPUI. Another one of these comments may be found at the top of this section as well.

    Now, nearly forty-eight hours after these users were blocked, there has been no sufficient evidence presented to support these blocks. These users are blocked from contributing to Wikipedia and giving input to critical decisions involving nearly all of the hundreds of articles regarding the entire road system of the United States. Therefore, if noone objects to this proposed action by myself by bringing concrete technical evidence to my attention or the attention of those who read this page, I will be unblocking Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood within sixteen to eighteen hours of this post. I believe that this proposed amount of time is sufficient for the blocking administrator and/or others to gather any evidence that may exist in regards to the supposed sockpuppetry of Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood. Failure to rectify this unjustice will reflect poorly on Wikipedia and its administrators and will ostracize two extremely important, if not essential, highway contributors from Wikipedia.

    Regards,

    Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

    Posted at 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    Unblocked Gateman1997 per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked JohnnyBGood per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alvam

    Anybody remember this guy?

    You already know how it turned out: Alvam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Curps 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. At least the guy claiming to be WoW has appeared to live up to his word. Alvam's apology did not seem sincere - it was basically, "I can't vandalize as well as WoW, so I quit." --Golbez 04:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive contributor to mathematics articles

    WAREL (talk · contribs) (and his older sockpuppet DYLAN LENNON (talk · contribs)) is adding material without references at mathematics articles, and is very insistent on his changes, generating edit wars with the mathematics community, see the following article histories decimal representation, real number, and twin prime conjecture, and more recently Chen prime.

    WAREL has been blocked for 3RR ([94]) and ever since is careful to revert up to three times, but that is no less disruptive. After the block, he warred again, he has been warned to not continue, yet he did two reverts after that.

    WAREL has been banned at the Japanese Wikipedia for disruptive behavior User talk:WAREL (at the bottom), he had lied about the reason for the ban, and attempted to twice delete that info about the causes for the ban [95] and [96] .

    His behaviour has been discussed twice at the math wikiproject (1 and 2).

    Comments? I would suggest a one-week block. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not looked at the details of this user's contributions, but my inclination is that Wikipedians are here for the purposes of disseminating information in a neutral and balanced manner. If this editor has shown consistently over a long period that they have no intention of modulating their editing approach in a spirt of cooperation, and that they are not willing to be gracious regarding the factuality or impact of their edits, I see no problem in instituting a prolonged block. Perhaps a week may be too long though. Would 3-4 days suffice instead? I generally advocate for shorter blocks, as long blocks may tend to defer present problems into the future. --HappyCamper 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgot to say that I was one of the mathematicians involved in reverting WAREL, so for that reason I would not attempt a block myself. If a neutral party would be willing to examine to evidence and decide what to do about it, that would be much appreciated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support an extended block of WAREL if he continues to behave in this manner (constant reverts without discussion or references). I'll try to moniter his activities. -- Fropuff 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Netoholic

    Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is again violating his ArbCom ban from the Wikipedia and Template namespace, as well as his 1RR limitation. Diffs:

    Namespace ban

    1RR

    —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For the namespace ban: Members of the arbitration committee have stated that they don't intend him to be blocked for making any edit, only if he disrupts.

    For the 1RR: he's allowed one revert, where's the second? Stifle 13:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be here Ehheh 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation. The second was not a revert, look at it carefully. Stifle 10:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I allege he's being disruptive. He's generally mass reverting every edit I make to the Template: namespace. I see Ehheh has already covered my mistake with the 1RR. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already warned him, I don't think the problem has continued. Stifle 10:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Apostrophe

    If an administrator would review the contributions of Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as there appear to be multiple violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA by this editor. A few examples are: moron; idiot; idiot and expletive; expletive. Thank you for your attention. Netkinetic 05:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have warned the user to be nicer with his edit summaries. Stifle 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazi Userbox

    I know, I know, I said I wouldn't have anything to do with userboxes in my RFA, but this case seemed so unambiguous that greater harm would be done by not acting, even if it did fly in the face of my previous contents. Accordingly, I have deleted and protected from recreation Template:User Nazi. I sincerely hope there is no disagreement on this issue. --Cyde Weys 05:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    None from me. It did nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 05:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded (thirded?). NSLE (T+C) at 05:57 UTC (2006-03-09)

    And don't mind me, I'll just be newbing it up for awhile on ANI. --Cyde Weys 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing I hate more than a nazi, but I would see this as a contribution towards NPOV. Nazi contributors would feel less comfortable and we'll see more of their view, which though I don't mind on a personal level, it does have an effect in making many articles potentially less POV. It's also blatant censorship. Hell, I wouldn't mind knowing the person I'm dealing with is a nazi either, if I'm having a debate on a talk page.
    KV 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not on censorship again, the issue when I deleted (but not protected) the userbox is that the template was created by a user, then he put it on TFD to get rid of it himself, which pretty much looked like POINT was being performed. So, that is why I performed the second deletion, Zoe did the first. While I welcome Cyde to the admin team, I just think that for the first few days, he should try not to use his admin powers on userboxes, since that is one of the major sticking points in his RFA. However, welcome to the team and as always, delegate when needed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "blatant censorship" like it's something we should be actively trying to avoid! To Hell with worries about "censorship" or no. We have no policies or norms to discourage censorship (and some, like the treatment of ArbCom-banned users) that actively encourage it. Admins need not constantly look over their shoulder for fear of some do-gooder crying out with the c-word. The typical response to "censorship!" is, and should be, "yes, and?". Wikipedia is not the real world.
    That said, newbie admins should not be deleting userboxen, any more than newbie editors should be opposing their deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No policies or norms to discourage censorship? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored.Geni 12:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, whoops. Well played! You know what I meant, anyway ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You could have asked somebody else to do it, and you wouldn't have had to prefix this with "I know I said I wouldn't, but ..." ... aa:talk 07:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What did the box say? If it had said "This user is a Nazi" (i.e. someone claiming it about themselves), what's wrong with that? It IS after all a political affiliation.(let me state for the record that I'm jewish and have lost relatives in the holocaust). How is it any different than userboxi saying "This user is a Republican" or "This user is an Anarchist"? (This defense is hinging upon that box actually saying "this user is a nazi" or something similar, obviously if it had said something else, it'd be another story). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 12:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Republicans didn't kill 1 million babies simply for existing. It brings up bad images. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm okay with this deletion, the box is about as offensive as the pedophile and KKK boxes. Nazism is something which a vast majority of the population consider an outright evil ideology, something which goes beyond the disagreements one has with parties which one merely opposes. In comparison, the "This user is a communist" box is not as offensive, at least not to me, while I certainly don't endorse that ideology either (I'm a social liberal), being a member of communist parties is considered entirely legitimate in most European countries. In my view, being a Nazi means that one endorses racism, intolerance and genocide. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is acceptable invocation of CSD:T1. (Which is a minority - most invocations of T1 are very much not acceptable imo, but I'll leave that to the arbcom...) Stifle 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    do we think anyone was actually going to use this userbox? seems like just trolling to me. Cyde did the right thing, even if the main issue in his RfA was userboxes.--Alhutch 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, the main issue among the opposers was userboxes. I think I might speak for most of the supporters when I say that I supported Cyde because I considered him to be an experienced, knowledgeable and intelligent editor. (And I am unanimous in that.)--Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more trying it on with the userbox trolling. 100% correct decision here - David Gerard 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a couple of notes:
    • The actual text at the time of deletion was "This user was a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party, and thus is probably really old. Respect your elders!" and it wasn't linked anywhere.
    • Although I can't seem to find the actual statement, there seems to have been some disavowal of all things box-like by Cyde that was crucial to his promotion and I'm deeply uncomfortable with that being tossed aside.
    • It had actually been to TfD and oddly enough survived.
    These facts make me say that actually, no this wasn't a proper action and no don't do it again. We're meant to be bold in editing, but the best policy with regards to administrative actions is to tread lightly. It would have been far far better simply to send this to TfD again.
    brenneman{T}{L} 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the TFD, it was not for the "respect your elders" version cyde deleted, but the "this user is a nazi" that I deleted. I saw many comments, pointing to a WP:POINT nomination and 3 speedy delete votes and one keep. I guess it was closed wrong, thats all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism of Ruhollah Khomeini

    User:CltFn has been constantly attacking the Khomeini article [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] quoting a source that is not verifiable (only anti-Khomeini websites mention it [102]). He has also made incivil remarks, dodging the issue of verifiability. [103] [104] [105] I request that an admin please take action as I cannot keep reverting him due to 3RR. Thank you. SouthernComfort 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have sourced all the insertions, however it seems that SouthernComfort would like to censor the page and delete anything that does not suit his POV.--CltFn 06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He has also been reverting my delete tags from his dubious images and article regarding the non-verifiable book rather than providing any explanations [106] [107] [108] [109] SouthernComfort 06:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You cannot just go and put a delete tag on a properly copyright tagged image just because you do not like the image.--CltFn 06:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a candidate for speedy deletion--if you want to nominate it for deletion, list it at WP:IFD. Have the two of you considered mediation? We could protect the article, but we'd much rather that the two of you stopped edit-warring. Chick Bowen 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mediation would be absurd since the book is either non-existent or an out-and-out forgery - it isn't verifiable. He has only provided a web link to an anti-Khomeini website. No biography or history of the Iranian revolution mentions it. SouthernComfort 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on , your scholarship on the matter is lacking , it is discussed or alluded to on the CSPAN interview with Azar Nafisi whose book page you reverted out of spite in this rever war you are involved in. I have seen this material on many Iranian blogger web sites and it is amply sourced on the internet. I have also provided you with a photo of the book and page scans of it , which you can read for yourself. --CltFn 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs aren't generally verifiable sources. If it is as you say amply sourced on the internet, perhaps just cite it here to prove your point? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC [| Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]

    I need some assistance with clarifiation of the above RFC and the use of sources banned by WP:RS. The question is simple and I ask for a simple clarification. I need to know if message board and mailing list sources can be used as primary or secondary sources. The article listed above uses them extensively, in fact, 85% of the article content originates from LKML, an anonymous mailing list in a biography article and the materials are cited as both primary and secondary sources. Please advise.

    Also, the site instructions were somewhat confusing. The Mediation page implies you must first address an RFC and also address the issue with AN\I before attemptin moderation. Waya sahoni 08:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • There has also been much discussion of the underlying issue on the articles talk page, although even content from a week ago has for some reason been archived. The RFC itself is malformed, with both "positions" written by one author (no bias there then) and a list of individuals which appears to have nothing to do with the underlying issue, other than those being ones who have disagreed with the authors position and seems nothing but an attempt to discredit those editors. --pgk(talk) 08:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE: This "admin" is a plant from the SCOX message board here to enforce that article. He's also one of the principal editors of the content. He should refrain from getting involved -- at least as an admin. Waya sahoni 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't irony wonderful, to quote yourself a few lines down "Also, Wikipedia has a policy about users making allegations...", FWIW to date I haven't made any administrative actions regarding the article, though of course my actions are open to the same scrutiny as any other administrator --pgk(talk) 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The RfC is indeed bogus since both positions were authored by User:Waya sahoni. There's really nothing to "request." Further, I was involved in the voting beacuse User:Waya sahoni is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, which is Mr. Merkey himself. So in effect, Mr. Merkey is editing his own biography (against wikipedia policy) and filing RfC requests on it when he doesn't get his way. It's truly a massive disruption to the entire process, which is why Mr. Merkey was blocked from wikipedia to begin with. --BWD (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, Wikipedia has a policy about users making allegations and/or attempting to expose or reveal a users identity. The next time this user makes such a statement, I would appreciate them being reminded of WP:NPA. Waya sahoni 16:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This appears to be a vexatious RFC. It's not certified, the two positions are not exhaustive, and it's badly formatted. I'm inclined to delete it for being uncertified, anyone else got an opinion? Stifle 13:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is it uncertified?. I have certified the RFC and signed it. Waya sahoni 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism of Ten Commandments

    64.107.135.2 has vandalized this page twice this morning. Would an admin take a look at this and warn the user? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. For future reference, you can do that yourself: just use the templates described at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning templates. Most vandals will stop before you get to level 4. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeq

    From the decision, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq, concerning Zeq: "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." On this basis I request that Zeq be banned from editting the article Machsom Watch, which he is intent on disrupting in accordance with his own opinions on that human-rights organization. --Zero 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested Zero several times to engage in discussion instead of reverts (of my edits and of other 3rd part editors). A request for mediation on the dispute have been filled(Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Machsom_Watch) The dispute involve 7 parties(Zero on one side and other 6 editors) - two have already accepted mediation. Zero did not.

    Zero is filing this request for ban to prevent participating in the dispute reolution process. He does so after I placed the mediation request on his talk page. I would like the opportunity to follow the dispute resolution process. Zero should be reminded that he also must follow Dispute reolution process (per same ArbCom decision) and he should be encouraged to accept mediation. Thank you. So far Zero have not responded to the request: [110]

    I am not disrupting this article, in fact it was zero who removed sourced content until other editors have jumped in and explained to him that he can not do that. There is also dicussion in talk page in which several editors are against what Zero has been doing but he keeps reverting without forming consensus. Zeq 13:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are views of other editors who do not see my edits as disruption but as manifestation of NPOV policy:

    [111]

    [112]

    [113]

    [114]

    [115]

    In fact Zero behaviour in this article is so bad that maybe mediation is not enough and ArbCom could finally hear a case about Zero's disruption and other violations ? Zeq 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zero, please refrain from presenting a content dispute that you are involved in with all other editors on Machsom Watch as a disruption by Zeq. You know it very well that per WP:Probation "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged." Instead of doing your utmost to have Zeq banned, you might be well-advised to be more active in the request for mediation, which has recently been filed regarding that article. Pecher Talk 17:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Armenian Genocide, Fadix (talk · contribs), and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

    User:Fadix currently dominates the article. I have tried to reason with him but so far he hasnt allowed me to edit the article. He does not allow anyone edit the article that he does not agree with.

    • User:Fadix has 316 edits in article namespace (214 on Armenian Genocide) [116]
    • I have left this article alone for weeks only to be threatened by fadix recently.
    • A sockpuppet check was done by User:Fred Bauder and the conclusion is that it is extremely unlikely that Karabekir is Cool Cat.
    • I have tollerated Fadix long enough. I do not enjoy being threatened out of the blue. He has a less than admirable incivil attitude towards not just me but practicaly everyone. An example is avalible on Talk:Armenian Genocide, User Talk:Fadix, etc.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will like to warn administrators that might view this page to wait few days since Coolcat is aware that I am preparing to open an arbitration cases against him, I am accumulating evidences that this time he has gone way to far by using a sock. Just few days I require. Fad (ix) 01:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you need to step back on this. We don't own articles at wikipedia, nor do we consruct accusations of fellow editors. Fadix, when Cool Cat says that he does not possess an sock, I think you'd better listen. Try and see if actually constructing conversation in the essense of good faith will yeild results. If he says no, try to work with him.
    An word for you too, Cool Cat. Stay calm (as you have been) and try to reason with Fadix. He seems to be somewhat concerned, and I ask you approach him with friendlier consulting. Both parties are failing to assume good faith, and Fadix's poor attempt at resolution is great cause for concern. Please just work together. This is not an valid reason for an rfar case.-ZeroTalk 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zero, it is him, even Tony admitted that this user seems to act like Coolcat, I would never accuse someone if there is no enought evidences, Coolcat is lying, and an example is when he tries explaining how come other users use his codes, when Nafriz his other alias has used those codes before anyone in Turkish Wikipedia(an alias he is also denying), Coolcat when he registered in Febuary 2005 brought them with him. Coolcat is denying all of this but just wait and see the evidences I will be presenting and leave you judge by yourself if those are just vague claims. No one can trust Coolcat and it has been already shown how chronically he lies. Let see what he does when I start translating some of Nafriz contributions which clearly document that Nafriz is him. Beside, from someone who did not know Turkish at first, and then basic level 1 he now jumped to level two. Check and see recently how many new users have been registering defending Coolcat and Karabekir. Also, that this log-in was registered soon after the subject of Karabekir(the man) was brought by other logins (Enverpasha and Talaatpasha) is another evidences on how Coolcat this time has gone really far, he can accumulate all the evidences he wants about me, he is doing this to threaten me knowing how much he has to hide, I am not afraid, I have nothing to hide, I respect too much Wikipedia to do what this individual has done. Fad (ix) 18:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to reason with him for a year. I have not even edited his Armenian Genocide for ages.
      • He has been extremely uncivil to not just me but to anyone editing Armenian Genocide or participating in talk. User:Shelby28 has been declared a sockpuppet of mine for correcting User:Karabekir's grammer mistakes.
      • A vauge example of his uncivility is avalible on this diff [117]
    • Also his behaviour here is problematic, he has an arbitration ruling he just technicaly breached by responding to my comment here just 7 minutes after my posting. Fadix is not active here and must have been stalking me to know about my posting.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is funny that you are saying this, you of all people should be the last to bring this up. You have suspected Thoth, Streotek, Davenbelle, Raffi(if my memory doesn't fail me), John(recently) and others I might skipt to be me. Also, I said possibly for Shielby28 and not a direct accusation, but given that you after dragging me into the mud I expect you to blow it out of proportion. Fad (ix) 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Armenian Genocide diff * Karl Meier * (-19975) back to concensus version before Karabakir (aka Cool Cat's) edits. Please see talk and discuss any major edits to this article first
    • A 3rd partiy (a person not a part of the debate) removing 20K while acusing me of sockpuppetary is problematic behaviour.
    • Karl Meier has a history of stalking me as per an arbitration hearing. Now he is stalking everyone he thinks is my sockpuppet and treates them with the same incivility. Just some misguded claim appears to be enough to convince him.
    I know no one believes this kind of behaviour is approporate and I feel someting needs to be done about it.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On a compromise, would be appropriate for you two to leave the other chap be for awhile and focus on other articles? This may involve becoming neutral in this situation and hopefully assuming good faith. As you're probably aware I have a very, very high opinion of my fellow editors here at wikipedia, and I think it constructive to pool your diverse editting skills on articles around the wiki. I'm trying to remedy this and I hope that we could drop the potential rfar and attempt some more dispute resolution. -ZeroTalk 15:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

    User:SPUI has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

    Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

    Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

    This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unblocked, as SPUI clearly isn't a pagemove vandalbot. From a cursory check of the moves it appears something of a movewar may be underway; while unfortunate that's not a reason to uphold the automatic block. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it wasn't the nature of the moves, but the rate. In the past, SPUI has moved up to 70 pages per minute, and he claims this is all done manually using Firefox tabs.
    I guess the question is, should SPUI be permanently whitelisted when it comes to page moves? He does seem to have a bit of a checkered history at Wikipedia. Any opinions? -- Curps 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that blocking is in order, but the moves I am aware of are being done without a final consensus, in fact the voting has gone the other direction. SPUI seems to be on a mission and while applaud his editing contributions, I would hope that he would refrain from going ahead with changes that are currently being debated and voted on. --Censorwolf 19:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all users with more than X edits (say 1000) should be whitelisted. The only circumstances under which I'd think it shouldn't whitelist a user we genuinely believe not to be a vandal is when that's a specific sanction (a "thou shalt not mass-move") handed down by the Arbcom. I'd guess that if they knew that technical capacity existed, then that un-whitelisting is something they'd reasonably be expected to apply in a few cases. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering SPUI is involved in a movewar, and is doing Wik-esque things (listing pages to "fix" after 3RR resets, which is NOT the objective of 3RR), I would campaign against whitelisting him for anything, and I say this as a fan of SPUI. --Golbez 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shoulda left him blocked... he's obviously moving way too fast to be humanly possible. It also doesn't look to me that Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Numbered highways has been adopted. In particular, the Voting shows only a minority favoring (Statename) for disambiguation. This seems like a one-side campaign being waged by bot. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've explained this to Curps - I go through tabs, paste the reason, go back through the tabs, double click California, hit end, paste " (California)", and hit enter. Please assume good faith. As for the naming conventions, I am simply moving them to fit the current disambiguation conventions, as the name of each route is "State Route X", not "California State Route X". This has nothing to do with the proposed naming conventions, as it is already part of the naming conventions. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is SPUI's explanation back in January of how he does the page moves: [118]. According to him, each one involves a Ctrl-Tab/double-click/Ctrl-V/Enter, all done manually and all four operations taking less than a second in total, and then repeated about seventy times or so non-stop, without any pauses.
    The bot doesn't assume good faith or bad faith... it just reacts to a number of triggers. I'm a bit reluctant to permanently whitelist because sometimes even known prolific users go bad or get hijacked (eg, User:Jobe6 recently). It would help if SPUI slowed down a bit. -- Curps 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I occasionally achieve the same speeds blocking open/zombie proxies. Given enough tabs and a total fearlessness of Carpal tunnel syndrome, it's humanely possible. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    I achieve vast numbers of edits very quickly when I welcome new users. See this slice of my contribs, for example. Firefox tabs are great for quickly repeating actions. --bainer (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    iirc, Firefox was also the weapon of choice used by Willy on Wheels, which is the primary reason why Curps' bot is detecting for page move vandalism in the first place. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    These moves were done against consensus. See WP:RPP, the above WP:AN/I, WP:NC/NH, User talk:SPUI, Talk:California State Route 17, and many other pages. I am virtually forced to revert them. Other users (who have been frivously accused of socks) would have reverted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you know why they're currently at "California State Route X"? I mass-moved them about a year ago from "California State Highway X". There were some complaints, but, except for SR 17, it settled down. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus against that then. There is now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Prasi90 blocked, but abuses talk pages

    User:Prasi90 has already been blocked but continue to abuse talk pages (Talk:2006 Varanasi bombings#Who is more of a threat to India-the LeT or the VHP? as chat pages), and on being reminded, responded aggresively to me on my talk page User_talk:AshishG#Re:This.7Btalk_page.7D is not_a discussion forum.. This is not personal peeves but something to keep in mind if and when admins decide to unblock him. Also, if you decide, to block him from editing even talk pages too. Thanks. AshishG (talk · contribs)

    Note that Prasi90 has in fact been unblocked, hence the ability to edit your talk pages. Blocked users are only able to edit their own talk page, and nowhere else. Given the reasons the editor has been blocked before, I'd think he's on a pretty short road to a pretty long block if he continues. -Splashtalk 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benapgar disrupting intelligent design again

    Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently back from a 1 month "vacation" for serial NPA vios, is disrupting the intelligent design article. Finding little to no support for a content change, he launched a series of endless rebuttals to force the issue and filed an RFC, but tried to limit participation to only outsiders to the article. To avoid the usual pattern of days of talk page disruption again, I've moved the discussion to a subpage. He's taken exception to this and is now on a rampage. Someone may want to have a gentle word with him. FeloniousMonk 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note on his talk page, but knowing Ben, it'll make no difference (and will probably be deleted in short order). SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been leaving "notes" at the RFC about editors following their comments: [119] [120] Either he's trolling us, as this would imply [121], or they're meant to discount the comments of those participating in the RFC who also contribute to the article. Either way, they're disruptive. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, some recent edit summaries are dancing around the edge of WP:NPA. He's also started a poll to go with yesterday's RFC: Talk:Intelligent_design/Poll1 If he follows the usual pattern of flouting WP:POINT he'll use the polls results in another attempt to force his POV into the article. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated threats from User:Colignatus

    User:Colignatus has been making personal attacks and threats against me for reverting his POV, original research contributions in areas where he is personally involved, such as his proposed Borda fixed point voting method. I have asked him twice to stop making threats and warned him that he can be blocked indefinitely for doing so. Tonight, he has made another threat, so he should be blocked.

    The threats are that he's going to find an academic superior of mine -- a professor or a dean -- and alert them to my "misconduct" on Wikipedia. Of course, I'm not particularly worried by this threat, but it's still a threat.

    I've tried to de-escalate the conflict, by the way; but every time I concede something, he claims it as a victory and uses it as more ammunition for personal attacks. Oh well.

    I'm an admin, but it would be inappropriate for me to be the one who blocks him. I'd like someone to block him after looking at his conduct on Talk:Borda fixed point. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you point to a diff in particular where he's attacking you? --InShaneee 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not seeing anything specific so far, but this also disturbs me a bit. He is trying to write to professors that attend schools that also Wikipedians attend, so I think it is a toss-up to wether or not to issue a block. However, I am highly concerned by these edits. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's a recent one with personal attacks and threats all rolled into one: [122]. This is after I warned him that personal attacks and threats would get him blocked, and that was after he had already made such threats twice. This situation is covered by Template:Threatban, by the way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have issued a strongly-worded warning to him. I don't really see any threats, and I'm not willing to block on this basis, although another admin may be. If it happens again, post here or let me know. Stifle 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am willing to block on these grounds. It's totally unacceptable for our contributors to be threatened and harassed in this manner. If he continues after your warning, it's time for a good long block.---Sean Black (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Antifinnugor

    bad faith rfc, posted by Bgully (talk · contribs), apparently a sock of formerly banned Antifinnugor (talk · contribs) (as Adam88 (talk · contribs)). Please delete the rfc and permaban the sock. dab (ᛏ) 08:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please do. I'd do it, except that I've also been involved with Antifinnugor before. I helped bring the old (but wild) RFC on him, that led to his being banned, and was (therefore) more recently honored with input from him on the Requests for comment/Bishonen brought by User:Hollow Wilerding. But I guess he hates dab even more than me. Somebody please kill this noisome absurdity with a stick. Bishonen | ノート 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    I've deleted it, but perhaps the permanent ban would better be done by more experienced admin. --BorgQueen 13:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're at it, whoever deals with Adam88/Bgully might also want to consider this choice little personal attack on me: [123]. Lukas (T.|@) 09:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    JarlaxleArtemis

    Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#JarlaxleArtemis

    This user was banned permanently. I request a clarification as to the terms under which he has been allowed to return. He has recently engaged in uncivil behavior and has stated that he refuses to follow the MoS. User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Removing "no source" tag, User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Header capitalization, etc. -Will Beback 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not recently engaged in uncivil behavior, and I have not stated that I refuse to follow the MoS. Why William is lying about this is well beyond me—I have no idea why he is. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you did not state it, but you engaged in edit warring with multiple users at Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the matter. You have used uncivil terms like "STFU" to other editors. And you have caused further problems with images, removing tags, and improperly using fair use images. These are all behaviors reminiscent of those which led to your previous ArbCom cases. You were permitted to return, if I recall correctly, because you promised not to engage in such behavior. If I'm wrong, please tell us what the circumstances of your return are. -Will Beback 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not engaged in edit warring on Lord Ao. The bot said "RM caps in section headers, minor fixes. using AWB" but didn't mention anything about a Manual of Style stating that as a rule. I said "stfu" to someone because he accused me of vandalism [124] and filled my talk page up with a lot of other garbage. I could have been impolite by saying "shut the fuck up," but I restrained myself. And what is this nonsense about me causing further problems with images? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your previous ArbCom cases have both concerned your professions of ignorance regarding policies and guidelines, plus other issues. "Requirement_to_read_policies". In this instance, you are well aware of the MOS standard of case in headings, because you complained about it [125] on your first day of editing after the unbanning. As for edit warring in an article, [126][127][128][129][130][131][132]. -Will Beback 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To refresh aging memories, can someone explain how Jarlaxle found himself unbanned? Phil Sandifer 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As an outsider I've two comments:

    1. The first sentence of this section claimed that JarlaxleArtemis was being blocked permanently. How could he make the comment above?
    2. From my reading of the two arbitration discussions, JarlaxleArtemis doesn't deserve a permanent block. He should be given some more chances to repent. In particular, IMO the faults discussed in the second arb is less serious than that stated in the first arb. This is an evidence showing tht JarlaxleArtemis did try to behave, just not to the expected extent.

    --Deryck C. 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is additional info not contained in the ArbCom cases. See User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis. Also he made a series of personal attacks on a member of the Wikimedia board. It was those two incidents which shortcircuited the second ArbCom case and led to his immediate permanent banning. Subsquently he came to an agreement with User:Linuxbeak to stop his bad behavior and to apologize to those he'd offended, and Linuxbeak intervened on his behalf. Whatever agreement they made does not seem to be active, as the complaints are piling up on his talk page again. So I'd like to know what this user's current status is, and if any conditions or paroles are in place. -Will Beback 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The block log [133] says that he is being blocked indefinite from September to November, then was unblocked by RedWolf24, who claimed that a probation is still in action. Then he was intermittently blocked for definite short periods due to further misbehaviour, but all of them has expired already. Deryck C. 06:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is Linuxbeak's review of his offenses: [134].
    Here is Linuxbeak's list of "tasks" that must be performed, which includes an indication that JarlaxleArtemis shall be on parole for a year. [135]
    Here is Linuxbeak immediately after the unbanning showing concern over sock puppets: [136].
    Here is a request from Linuxbeak in mid-December to write an apology: [137]
    Here is JarlaxleArtemis in mid-January selectively deleting all references to his ban or any requirements:[138].
    Here is user:Psychonaut stating in mid-February that the requirements are still unfufilled that were due by December 15:[139]
    So, again, there appears to be a specific agreement between Linuxbeak and JarlaxleArtemis, but the terms are not clear, Linuxbeak has not been active as a mentor, and JarlaxleArtemis hasn't met his part of the bargain. Will Beback 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    However, from the block log, I think RedWolf24 is more likely to have an agreement with JarlaxleArtemis, because an admin usually wouldn't lift a permanent block. Deryck C. 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Aha! Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-14/Unbanning and mentorship, and Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee#JarlaxleArtemis. The requirements:
    • Mediation/Mentorship
    • A formal apology given to Linuxbeak, Psychonaut, Anthere, NicholasTurnbull and anyone else who he may have caused harm
    • Repair any damage caused by acts of sockpuppetry/impersonation on other Wikis
    • A probationary period for as long as his defunct ArbCom case originally had set as the penal period (one year)
    Until he has completed these requirements from November, the middle two in particular, perhaps he should not be editing. I appreciate the Linuxbeak has endeavored to mentor, and has done so after a remarkable show of forgiveness on his part. However JarlaxleArtemis appears to have ignored the process. Now that we've unravelled the case, it appears to not require ArbCom clarification. I suggest we move this thread to AN. -Will Beback 07:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Per that agreement, Jarlaxle is on probation, which can be enforced by any uininvolved admin. If this is an enforcement problem, we need to get some admins to look at this. As well, he's put under mentors, who are given free reign to stop his disruption by necessary means; if the mentors have left or resigned, or forgotten him, then we need some new ones. If you think it is beyond that point, then what is probably needed is just some consensus on ANI to reban him without arbcom intervention. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Redwolf24's involvement was as a member of the WP:MENTCOM. The agreements were negotiated by Linuxbeak, and the Mentorship Committee created subsequently to provide oversight; Redwolf24 was one of the principal founders of the MentCom, and involved with most of it's cases. To my knowledge (and I was in the loop on most of what he did), he didn't have any part in Linuxbeak's negotiations. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC) This post intended to respond to Deryck Chan's comment that "RedWolf24 is more likely to have an agreement with JarlaxleArtemis," not to suggest that the assigned mentors should be the ones to handle the matter and/or that other administrators should not intervene. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is user:Redwolf24 active currently? user:Linuxbeak has been on intermittent wikibreaks, and the other two appointed mentors have not been involved noticeably. Unless someone from the Mentcom wants to get involved then I think the admins will have to do it. Personally, I think completing his unbanning requirements should be a pre-condition for editing, but someone else can make that determination. -Will Beback 08:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't, by the way, interpret the terms of the agreement to be that only the mentors can enforce the probation. Rather, any admin can, especially with ANI consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. So our current conclusion is, somebody unblocked him, and he's back. So what's next? I can't see any proposed action here. It looks like a page of evidence more than a request for clarification. Deryck C. 08:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my earlier suggestion, I've moved it to AN/I. Any admin (or mediator) may respond. -Will Beback 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jarlaxle is not a banned user per se. Linuxbeak took it upon himself to try to rehabilitate Jarlaxle into the Wikipedia community, and Jimbo gave it an official "ok, why not, let's see if it works." So treat Jarlaxle like any user for the moment - David Gerard 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not a banned user, but one whose ban was lifted with certain requirements, who is on parole, and who is engaging in the same behaviors that brought him to the ArbCom twice. -Will Beback 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't really followed recent developments concerning Jarlaxle, but I did see some of his harassment of Linuxbeak a few months ago, and I think that it was very good of Linuxbeak to welcome him back, and it's disappointing that it doesn't seem to be working out. AnnH ♫ 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linuxbeak wrote on December 8, " The written apology that you agreed to as part of your unbanning will be due no later than December 15th at 00:00 UTC. A late submission will be allowed, but you will be banned from editing starting at December 15th with the exception of your user space." [140] We know that the apologies were never written. Is there any reason why the user should not be blocked, pursuant to his agreement? -Will Beback 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    I have blocked JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely because he has failed to write his written apology before December 15, 2005, as per the unbanning agreement. He may be unblocked as soon as he submits the apology, provided he's still acting reasonably. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't we frown upon demanding apologies? Phil Sandifer 05:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inadvertant defamation

    I've been instructed to mention here that I may have inadventantly defamed Eamonn Holmes on the discussion page under his name. I did not realize that the allegations were unproven. Please remove my libellous change from the talk history. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.144.35.120 (talk • contribs) . 11:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the comment from the page history. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robert Blair

    User:Robert Blair, an anti-circumcision POV pusher, was banned by the arbitration committee from editing circumcision or sex-related articles. He always edited from 207.69.137.*, 207.69.138.*, or 207.69.139.*. Recently, he has been trying to edit Medical analysis of circumcision (see here). Could people please keep an eye out? Thanks. Jakew 12:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Randazzo56

    After making a series of borderline trolling comments, Randazzo56 (talk · contribs) made this comment last night [141] "Keep a cool head my ass, Keep Jesus out of it, Your queers can take the name your own god in vain" for which I have blocked him for 24 hours. I've spoken with this user before about refraining from attacking language (for this comment [142]), so he knows it's verboten. Review is welcome. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 24 hours? Remarkable restraint. android79 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Defiance of Arbcom on Rajput

    I am utterly certain that User:10 000 thundering typhoons and User:Stephanian are both sock-puppets of User:Shivraj Singh, who has been banned by this Arbcom decision from further activity on the Rajput page. I am suffering ad hominen attacks, baseless allegations and attempts at intimidation on the Talk:Rajput page. I request perma-banning of both. Regards, ImpuMozhi 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    a sockcheck was "inconclusive" since many new accounts appear to be from their ISP. But I share ImpuMozhi's impression that these users are almost certainly socks, since they conveniently and seamlessly continue the banned user's "campaign". Don't assume good faith to the point of absurdity. dab (ᛏ) 15:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IP conststant vandalism...

    Please check 66.30.63.147 Nothing but Vandalism KsprayDad 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • If vandalism still doesn't stop after warning, report at WP:AIV. Note that we can't block IPs indefinitely, unless it is an open proxy. Thanks! :) - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RJII violating probation

    RJII is violating his probation on Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. He is consistently adding wrong and POV information which he knows is POV, I can only assume, in order to provoke me to violate 3RR. I believe this violates WP:NPOV and WP:POINT.

    For example:

    • Adds point which he fully knows is POV
      • False. This is sourceable. In fact, after you complained about it, I inserted it with a source. [143] RJII 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Now that he's got me banned from there, he goes in and deletes the SOURCED information!:[reply]
        • That is one person's POV. You worded it as if it was a true fact. I merely moved it to another place and NPOVd it. It is source number three in the referneces. -- infinity0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [144] THIS IS HIS TACTIC TO GET AROUND WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON SOURCING. RJII 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What have I done wrong here? NOTHING. RJII 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Screw this, RJII. This page is large enough already. If you have any replies put them on my talk page. -- infinity0 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    -- infinity0 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I'm going to ban him from this article (but not its talk page, of course) for two weeks and let things settle down. If another admin wants to undo me, go right ahead. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Do I have permission to revert to [145] and make the necessary edits (ie. remove occurences of "communism") to remove the POV? -- infinity0 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You needn't permission to edit; be bold. Use your common sense, though, and try not to provoke anyone. (Keep in mind that if you've been reverting a couple of his edits as you go, you might violate the 3RR with another revert. I haven't checked. I can't, however, absolve you from that rule if you're in danger of breaking it.) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I forgot to mention. Remember to assume good faith; do you really have evidence that he's trying to goad you into a 3RR vio? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I got ahead of myself. A similar thing has happened before, and I just put two and two together. -- infinity0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an attack by a very disruptive individual. infinity has been engaging in massive edit warring, putting in false information with no or non-credible source, etc. Why don't you take a look at the edit history of what he's doing on that article? He's destroying it. The charges he's making against me are false. You just accept what he says on face value? This is his tactic. If he can't get away with POV pushing he complains against me, no research is done to see if his claims are true, and I'm banned. It's B.S. RJII 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RJII, stop being so damned paranoid. I'm not out to get you. -____________________________________- -- infinity0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're an extremely disruptive editor. It's obvious that you are out to get me. You want me banned so that you can tailor the article to your POV and delete my SOURCED edits. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. You're taking advantage of the fact that I am on "probation" knowing that all you have to do is complain and nobody checks up on your complaints. RJII 20:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RJII, have you forgotten WP:CIVIL? Calling for someone to be banned, regardless of merit, is a clear violation of civility. If you continue doing that, don't be surprised if YOU are the one who earns a ban. --TML1988 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    infinity's word should be be trusted at face value. Look at his attempt at adminiship. The Wikipedia community rejected it realizing how disruptive he is: Infinity0Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 He's been engaging in edit warring, personal attacks, multiple 3RR violations, deleting sourced info. This complain of his is just another element of his disruption to try to get his way. RJII 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The word "disruptive" does not appear on that page. Please stop editorialising. Also, see above bolded comment. -- infinity0 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RJII, I know of that RfA. I even voted on it. I voted oppose. However, it's completely irrelevant here. I looked at the situation, and judged it the best I could. Infinity's past transgressions and rejected RfA are immaterial. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what IS material? What have I done wrong? There is nothing wrong with putting in sourced information. And there is nothing wrong with making statements more precise so they don't mislead the reader. RJII 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources, precision, and NPOV of your edits were disputed. You knew they were disputed; Infinity disputed them on your talk page. You forged ahead anyway. That's what was disruptive, and what merited the ban. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make any sense. The edits that were THERE were disputed. I changed them BECAUSE they were disputed. infinity writes very very POV and his edits need fixing. I was doing the article a service. And, I'm banned for it. It's ludicrous. RJII 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm tempted to just get a new account and start afresh. I'm tired of this "probation" being used against me by infinity. All a POV pusher had to do is COMPLAIN and I'm banned. That's how they can get around censoring the sourced information I put in an article. The system is horrible. (And, by the way, the probation is a result of the same type of thing; to try to get me banned they scoured over a years worth of edits for anything that could be construed as a "personal attack") RJII 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:SOCK. --AaronS 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a first, usually you just wait for woohookitty to ban you before you make a new sockpuppet, or go on a 6 month break, or just go pagemove happy, whatever, guess your "close down wikipedia by pulling the funding" plan didn't pan out, can't wait to meet your next sock!--205.188.116.65 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I REQUEST TO BE UNBANNED. FIXING POV PROBLEMS IN AN ARTICLE IS NOT A CRIME. RJII 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • How's that "class action lawsuite" coming? Not so well I guess--205.188.116.65 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell are you talking about? RJII 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anderson12 indefinitely blocked.

    I blocked Anderson12 indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Basil Rathbone, and therefore of Lightbringer. I refer to CheckUser evidence, as well as this image, which was uploaded by Basil Rathbone earlier. I appreciate discussion on this block. Ral315 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    D-Day makes a POINT

    Check out this]. D-Day seems to be violating WP:POINT. We've had previous "humorous" nominations of userboxes that blew up into flames. His actions can be interpreted as not so subtle attacks on people trying to seriously resolve the issue for the good of Wikipedia. Instead of respect that, he's just making fun. TfD shouldn't be played around with (except on April 1). --Cyde Weys 20:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism (again) from IP: 216.174.135.162

    Vandlism continues from 216.174.135.162. Most recently on Repetitive strain injury which I have now reverted three times in the last hour. The IP talk page shows a long history of vandalism and therefore I put this IP forward for your consideration. User_talk:216.174.135.162. I appreciate your time. Oliver Keenan 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Issue {{test4}} template, then list on WP:AIV if vandalism still does not stop. It's a school IP, so I guess some kids are being naughty today! :P - Mailer Diablo 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Infinity0

    Infinity is being extremely disruptive and destructive to the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article. He is edit warring (take a look at the history of edits). He requests sources for information, then when they're presented he deletes the information (see the talk page there). He goes against consensus. When the others agree to separate a section into headers, he deletes them, etc. Someone needs to put a stop to his edit warring. His recent request for adminship failed because of this kind of stuff. [Infinity0Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 But, he's still at it on that article. What can be done? RJII 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody else agreed to separate the sections; I even helped to separate out the sections, and now the article does indeed have sections. I have not edit warred on that article today; we made edits to separate sections at a time. You provided one source out of the many edits you made, and that was the one I kept. Even so, that sourced edit of yours was POV and I had to NPOV it. My RfA failed mainly because of two recent 3RRs, both against you. I am not going to make the same mistake again. -- infinity0 21:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mislead people. You've been egaging in MASSIVE edit warring. Do you want me to go in and pick out all your 3RR violations? RJII 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done that for you. Here is my block log. Starting from the bottom:

    • Editing in China, used a proxy
    • Ultramarine reported me for 3RR even though I explained all my reversions and they were reversions of different text.
    • Steve block caught us reverting each other's edits on Anarchism
    • You reported me for giving up trying to reach consensus at Anarcho-capitalism

    One edit war, with you. -- infinity0 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's why I'm reporting you. You're edit-warring, misreprenting sources to maintain POV, deleting sourced information, etc. You already got me banned from the article trying to fix the things you were screwing up. If I'm banned you certainly should be banned. Any administrator can see your antics by viewing the history pages: [146] Why I'm banned and you're not is a mystery. RJII 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacrosse

    user:Jacrosse has repeatedly removed tags without discussion, and has been told to stop repeatedly by a variety of editors. Following this editthat once again removed tags from Neoconservatism without even an edit summary, I blocked his account for 24 hours. -Will Beback 21:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Locke Cole

    Locke Cole (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed dispute tags that I placed on Leet (language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He's not at all participated in the content dispute, nor helped in any way to solve it. I feel like, because of past experiences, his actions are only in opposition to me, personally. Removal of dispute tags in this way is considered Vandalism, which I've warned him about several times. I'd prefer if some neutral admin would look into this and see if a block is warranted (he's removed them five times in the last day), or at least a stern warning followed by a block if he persists further. When there is a content dispute, it is imperitive that we clearly note that, both as a warning to readers and to editors who want to paricipate in the solution. -- Netoholic @ 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is also considered vandalism to misuse dispute tags, which I believe you are doing. Further, administrators should be aware that Netoholic has violated his ArbCom imposed 1RR. But regarding dispute tags, quoting Wikipedia:Vandalism (under Improper use of dispute tags)–
    Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.
    He's the only one disputing the article right now, and I find it hard to believe one person can be allowed to place tags like this indefinitely until they get their way. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come now... I think admins can read WP:VAND themselves, but here is the part Locke left out:
    Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.
    As for his 1RR claim, the Arbitrators have clarified to not apply that literally. Besides, reverting vandalism does not count. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The arbitrators have made clear your bans and limitations should apply if you're being disruptive. This is just such a case. You've been shown sources that satisfy the claim that "Leet" is a language. You've been offered a reasonable compromise (which, frankly, you did not deserve given your attitude). And what do people get for their trouble? You slap {{farc}} on it, getting it demoted from featured article, then when that doesn't get you your way, you decide to slap dispute tags on it. You're being a dick. Knock it off. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you - knock it off until someone can review this. Going at each other's throats now, and here at the ANI, does nothing. NSLE (T+C) at 00:37 UTC (2006-03-11)

    Without wanting to fall into the trap of becoming NSLE's reviewer (ick! No! Messy!), could I just make one quick appeal? Please, please, please — let's see no more of this "you know, technically, if you read the wording in exactly the right way, this could be considered a form of vandalism?"! Either Netoholic's wrong, or Locke Cole's wrong. Pulling in project pages that clearly have nothing to do with the case weakens your position and increases the average amount of wikilawyering 'round here, and that's always a Bad Thing. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to hear opinions as to whether this dispute (which includes Neto and Locke, as well as myself to some degree) should be rolled into the current RfAr (which Neto requested), or instead should be its own RfAr. I suspect that many of the same issues will be brought up (behavior of parties involved), but at the core is a fundamentally different issue. Mediation has been attempted, and has failed. I ask not because I want to stir opinion (or yes, Neto, to poison the well), but because I am not familiar enough with the process. It seems to me, also, that it would be a real pain in the ass for all of us involved to be handling two such processes at once. Opinions? ... aa:talk 03:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theodore7

    In his first edit in a long while, Theodore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made what appeared to me a set of clear and vicious personal attacks on User:PL. A recent ArbCom ruling against Theodore7 included a standard personal attack parole, and I blocked him for a week under that. Which has led to him describing (on his talk page) my campaign of harassment and one-sidedness, etc. In the spirit of fair play, I welcome any and all to review my actions and unblock if they feel any inclination to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a good block- That edit is a very clear (not to mention egregious), violation of his personal attack parole.--Sean Black (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As soon as someone starts educating another user about the difference in their liability for either slander or libel, I start reaching for my "put user on first train out of here" button. But a return ticket for a week's time is fair enough. Note that Theodore7 has now used up the "last chance saloon" part of his remedy, and that admins are empowered to block him indefinitely for any further violations, without needing to refer to the ArbCom. He has also, in that cited diff, failed to provide an edit summary and used up the first of his 5 such edit summaries on the road to a year-long block for that alone. -Splashtalk 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Theodore7 (conservatively) for one week for making legal threats. Please note that, as I point out here, he clearly does know the "no legal threats" policy—he quotes from it (!). He's very ready for an indefinite block, but for now, I have merely added together the three blocks issued today, by Vsmith, Bunchofgrapes, and myself, for one week each, for quite separate violations, and thus blocked Theodore7 for three weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Sorry, I made a mistake, Vsmith's block was from last month. OK, Theo is blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Repeat (and how!) vandalism at Julie Andrews

    Someone at a third IP now is trying to get this link on Julie Andrews. This page pruports to have information about a "secret son" but, like so many other Internet message boards, its sources are dubious if not nonexistent, and much of its content could be considered by many people to be offensive. Can this link be added to the WikiBlacklist? Thanks RadioKirk talk to me 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit: Ditto for this unsourced blog along the same lines? Someone else now is trying to add this one... RadioKirk talk to me 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a spoonful of sprotect makes the medicine go down... · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL thank you :) If I may, though, Wikiblacklisting the URLs might be more permanent? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I-95 exit list

    (since apparently editing disputes are okay on this page now) There already exist more accurate exit lists on several articles such as Interstate 95 in New Jersey, and thus the page was edited to link to those to avoid a content fork. Several editors are reverting this for no apparent reason. I listed it on RFC, and got one response agreeing with me. It keeps being reverted to the fork. Something needs to be done. OMG ARBCOM SANCTIONS. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well but you're ignoring the fact that on your talk page and the article talk page we've requested for you to not do what you've been doing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're ignoring the fact that Wikipedia:Fork asks you not to do what you're been doing. Please read that page until you understand why forks are bad. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SPUI is actually right here - article forks are generally a violation of or attempt to get around NPOV, which is a policy that no group of editors can form "consensus" amongst themselves to ignore - David Gerard 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Different stance"? This is an exit list- how can it be POV? The exits are what they are. It's like accusing someone of POV on Wikisource. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theodore7 again

    I have blocked Theodore7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) indefinitely for legal threats and protected his user talk page until the issue is resolved. I ask for other admins to review my actions and, if necessary, reverse them. The relevant discussion is on his UT page. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Security issue?

    Squidward has posted this URL: [147] to website, of which he spams the URL about the 'pedia (in edit summaries, hence not deletable]. Anything do be done about about that? Herostratus 01:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Featured Article Continued Vandalism

    Hi, I'm just writing to report vandalism that seems to occur quite a bit on featured articles. It seems the vandal seems to have fun changing his username every time he vandalizes the article. This usually happens for about 12 posts, then he stops. I'm not sure if the IP Address has been blocked yet or not, but it's something to consider. To see a history of his edits, just look at today's featured article.

    Once again I am not sure if he/she has been blocked. If they have been, I am sorry to report it! Thanks again!

    Cheesehead Fan 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's nothing new, to be honest. And since almost every FA is hit hard, it's almost impossible to trace who is who. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The above users are vandalising and propogating false information on all Iran/Persian related articles. They are posting false information. Nothing they have edited includes fact, it has all been lies and propoganda. They are just racist against Iranian people and Wikipedia must not allow them to post their opinions here as fact!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs)

    Can you please provide links to diffs, or at the very least the specific articles, in question? Stifle 02:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Administrator Jim Duffy (author)

    I made a factual edit to Dr. Duffy's article based on information he had posted to his Wikipedia User page here. For whatever reason, User:Jtdirl (Dr. Jim Duffy (author) edited his own article and reversed my edit in contravention of Wikipedia principles and as recently reiterated by Jimbo Wales. - Ted Wilkes 02:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Other editors at Wikipedia rely on User:Jtdirl as he has repeatedly stated he is a historian and made assertions on various topics based on a claim to be an "academic" with a PhD degree from the National University of Ireland and that he is a published author (both history and fiction). He asserted these things as a fact for a long time on his User page as seen here. People need and have a right to know if he has lied about his credentials or not as they in fact have depended on his advice based on his asserted qualifications. As a Wikipedia Administrator, I'm certain he will want to state that he is or is not Jim Duffy (author). After all, he created the Duffy article. - Ted Wilkes 03:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To my mind, User:Ted Wilkes is frequently gaming the system. He did this several times in the past. Most people may remember his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. There is much evidence that he is identical with multi-hardbanned User:DW. For a summary of facts supporting this view, see [148]. Wilkes was blocked for one week by administrator Jtdirl. This kind of contribution seems to be his personal reaction. Onefortyone 04:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Jim Duffy = jtdirl" is something Skyring was convinced of to the point of obsession, and spread over Wikipedia as far as he could - it's not actually documented in the wider world. Jtdirl emails to wikien-l as "Thom Cadden", fwiw - David Gerard 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TKH Mebo

    This user has a problematic User page to begin with, and has only been here since March 7, spending most of his/her time making edits eerily similar to those of Bobblewik. I almost blocked him, but thought I'd bring it here first for discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is a wiki, right? Why not just edit is userpage? Stifle 03:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing of other people's User pages is generally frowned upon. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the general principle of user page integrity, but this is clearly just for shock value (it was a whole lotta boobs, if anyone cares). I've removed the images for now, and warned the user not to POINT. --bainer (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure User:Thebainer's edits are among the permissible exceptions to User:Zoe's "generally frowned upon" :)
    — User:Adrian/zap2.js 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Duce Bohogren

    Why is this person still editing when he was indefinitely blocked on March 9?

    20:11, March 10, 2006 Zoe deleted "Talk:Schmeedisum" (recreation of deleted nonsense)
    17:01, March 9, 2006 Obli deleted "Talk:Schmeedisum" (talk page of deleted article)
    Page history<br? 

    19:50, March 10, 2006 . . Duce Bohogren 
    
17:00, March 9, 2006 . . Calton (db-reason|Talk page of deleted and recreation-protected article) 
    
16:54, March 9, 2006 . . Duce Bohogren 
    
16:36, March 9, 2006 . . Duce Bohogren

    User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The block; The edit. That is really weird... Is there a developer in the house? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't view your second link, but his contributions list shows that he last edited on the 9th. --BWD (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    His last edit was five minutes ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see him editing talk page edits, do it looks like a person can edit any User and article talkpage edits even while banned --Jaranda wat's sup 03:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted the Talk page that he edited, see the links I provided above. Blocked users should only be able to edit their own Talk pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just created a quick account that was even more quickly blocked (good heads up, User:Freakofnurture!). While I was banned, I could not edit anything anywhere (just as its supposed to be). This user's ability must be some kind of weird glitch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be able to edit your own talk page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson_Ban_Test_to_see_something I didn't try my own because thats the only one I could have... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Ungovernable Force

    This guy has been harrassing me. He vandalized my user page with a "fuck you." [149] RJII 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The vandalism was a month ago and has been dealt with already. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. This is the first time I've reported it. He should be penalized. I want justice done. (By the way, I think BorgHunter and Ungovernable Force are apparently buddies) You shouldn't be protecting him from punishment. RJII 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, this is the first time I have encountered this user. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen his/her name around, but I have no memory of every interacting with BorgHunter before today. The Ungovernable Force 07:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you being protective? What does it matter to you if he's banned for a day or so? You just banned more for two weeks from an article when I did absolutely nothing wrong, based on a mere bogus complaint from an edit-warring POV-pusher. It's obvious you have a bias against me. You should step out of the way and let an uninvolved administrator handle this. RJII 05:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please prove to me that there's any justice at all on Wikipedia. It's proved to me over and over against that there's not. It's all about who you know. The system is corrupt. RJII 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you trying to say I am actually high up in the echelons of the wikiadmins? A quick look at my userpage and manifesto show I am pretty out of step with many of the people in power here. The Ungovernable Force 07:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, here's your uninvolved admin. WTF? This happened over a month ago. Get over it. android79 06:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It slipped my mind. I'm reporting it today. RJII 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's too bad. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. No one's going to block someone for a month-old personal attack. android79 06:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should the time factor be relevant? Either he vandalized my page with "fuck you" or he didn't. Because it was done a month ago, it means it's ok? I disagree. I'm not aware of any policy that says time passing is an excuse for this kind of thing. RJII 06:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're currently in the middle of a disagreement with this editor (which of you, if either, is in the right, I have no idea) and so you're pulling up a month-old affront and trying to get him punished for it. See laches. If it didn't piss you off enough a month ago to say something about it, and you continued to engage him in dialogue thereafter, well, basically, that's too bad. Besides, the worst that would have happened would someone would post on his talk page "Don't do that", since he doesn't have a history of unpleasant behaviour. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, two people did tell me not to do that at the time, including a friend of mine and I have not made any other such edits since and have no plans of continuing. Also, I have actually avoided conflict with this user for the most part since then, but I noticed this [[150] edit today and brought it to borghunters attention since he/she had blocked RJII from editing the anarchism page recently (And I assumed this was the edit war refered to in the message). I suggested RJII be further blocked due to his/her willingness to continue engaging in the edit war that got him/her blocked in the first place. RJII claimed their girlfriend made the edit, so I am dropping this issue. I am just trying to show why it is RJII is now so intent to block me for something I did a month ago and have since shown regret for. Also, see the talkpages of myself, RJII and BorgHunter for more info. I would also like to mention that RJII has a long history of personal attacks and accussing others of harrasment him/herself (he/she accused me of harrasment months ago for trying to get him/her to apologize for and stop making impolite comments towards other editors and myself on the anarchism talkpage). My inappropriate edit was my one time lashing out in frustration at this user, and I have since committed to never do such things (and have stayed true to this, even though I really wanted to break it during the userbox debates). That is all I have to say about this for now. The Ungovernable Force 07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I did rebuke User:The Ungovernable Force for that edit, and while it was lamentable, it didn't seem to be part of a pattern of vandalism. *Both* User:The Ungovernable Force and User:RJII have deliberately antagonized one another since then -- I have no clue whether TUF's subsequent apology to RJII was sincere, and frankly don't care to know, as long as they stop trying to get one another banned. It's frustrating to have my only local known Wikipedian pop up on WP:ANI =P
    — User:Adrian/zap2.js 09:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    Socks of Shran/CantStandYa

    • Previously identified sock accounts/IPs:
    • Sample of articles which have been edited by more than one current account. *Conspicuous edit warring.
    • Editors who have posted warnings or complaints to the current accounts:
    • Proposed action:
    • "Shran" could be a more valued contributor if he would stop using sock puppets to edit war. He has been asked repeatedly by editors including myself to stick to one account. The user, through various accounts, has protested that the IPs are either open to many users, or are used by a "little brother" or "brother-in-law". Despite these claims the edits are clearly the work of one person. The previous set of sock puppet accounts was blocked by me and others in the fall of 2005, and a new set has been created since then. As with previous socks, these accounts have been used to abuse consensus and even to pile-on votes in CfDs and an AfD. As we did before, I propose that we block all the current sock accounts indefinitely while leaving one account open for editing, User:CantStandYa. I'd appreciate hearing input from members of the community on this user and on my proposed action. Are there any other known accounts for the user? Have there been any other editing problems? Are there any other measures, beyond blocking the obvious socks, that we should pursue? How can we get this prolific editor to follow community norms? -Will Beback 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See also User:Stbalbach/anontexan. -Will Beback 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to Stbalbach's research, it appears that this user has also been using a number of dial-up accounts. Short-term range blocks may also be necessary to manage this sock-puppetry. -Will Beback 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RJII Banned from AN & AN/I

    Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug#RJII placed on probation as clarified on RfAr Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RJII probation, I have banned RJII (talk · contribs) from posting to the Administrators Noticeboard or Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, or the talk pages thereof, for a period of three months. Also, given Dmcdevit's suggestion, I am opening a dialogue on a full ban under the general probation clause, for a period of not less than one month. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps you might tell us exactly what actions have led to this? I know I could hunt for them, but this would be the appropriate place (or at least a pointer.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I gave two links when requesting clarification, specifically [153] and [154] , which I thought were good, recent examples of disruption.--Sean Black (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider me admin #2. I've tried to be reasonable to him, but he has disrupted nearly every article he has touched, including ANI. I support two weeks as a general cool down period. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider me admin #3, and I'm willing to support a ban of anywhere from two weeks to three months. Ral315 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ford Mondeo

    I have messed up the formatting slightly when adding important data on trim levels - can an admin fix it for me? --Sunfazer (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Important data on trim levels? Oxymoron alert! Just zis Guy you know? 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs)

    68.110.9.62 is making plenty of personal attacks via edit summaries, but while I've warned by {{npa3}} (and will block if I see another one of these), I am finding it difficult to sort through his/her edits to figure out what is vandalism/POV and what is not (particularly since I'm not accustomed to being up this early :-)). Can folks look through them and make calls on what should be reverted and what should not? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    After more personal attacks and a clear vandalism of England, I've blocked him/her for a week and decided that this user's edits are sufficiently unreliable that I reverted all of his/her top edits. Some of it might be correct information, but this user deliberately inserts false information as well, and with no confidence that this user edits in good faith, I decided that the safest routine is to remove them. Obviously, this doesn't eliminate any false info that the user inserted as non-top edits. :-( --Nlu (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP's editing pattern strongly resembles that of User:Kenneth Alan and his reincarnations User:Kenneth Alansson, User:Borderer, User:Frontiersman, and probably several more. Kenneth Alan was banned by the arbcom for a year on October 2, 2004. Before the expiry of that block he apparently edited under a different name, and his block was extended to March 2006. Later, after more sockpuppetry, it was extended to May 2006. If others concur that 68.110.9.62 is indeed Kenneth Alan then his block should be extended to March 12th 2007, that fact noted on user:Kenneth Alan, and his further contributions be reverted on sight. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletions of referenced material from Holodomor by Irpen (talk · contribs)

    Irpen continues deleting referenced material from the Holodomor article. Recent deletions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=43255029&oldid=43250760

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=42929948&oldid=42920697

    There are facts, numbers, list of countries that acknowledged Holodomor. The article has been protected several times to avoid revert wars. There is a very long discussion on the talk page, which led to nothing. Referenced facts continue to be deleted by that user. I am out of ideas on how to convince Irpen to stop these deletions.--Andrew Alexander 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I can see why that discussion went nowhere: it didn't get the result you wanted. Repeatedly re-inserting images with disputed copyright status is hardly constructive, is it? Neither is blanket reverting, losing other material in the process. Irpen seems to me to be acting entirely reasonably, and I note that Irpen's edit history is both broader in scope and apparently contains far fewer edit wars. Perhaps the problem is closer to home? I note that you just reverted again. Stop it. Engage in discussion on the Talk page and stop revert warring. Just zis Guy you know? 16:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't insert any disputed copyright images in this article. All the images I inserted there are over 70 years old. I replied to your comment on the discussion page. Deleting referenced material isn't an answer, is it? Yes, I did revert these deletions. I will do this again unless you provide some sort of reason. Please go ahead and ban me for this. Here is my answer:
    Ok, let's go sentence by sentence of what was erased. First you erased a commonly known term from the first paragraph. There is a long debate on this page by the people who refuse to accept it. However, the term passes the definition of a "common term" according to Wikipedia standards (please read WP:NC - "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Is this not neutral?). Second, you erased the sentence "The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities." It is referenced and seems neutral. Then you erased a referenced sentence "At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year).[22]" Again, I don't see anything not neutral here, please correct. Then you deleted "The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation"." Is this not neutral? If not, please explain why in detail. Then you erased two paragraphs: "The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[23]. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general." and "Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City. The fourth Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine. Still the Holodomor remains a politically charged topic for many parties, especially in Russia. Some Russian authors continue claiming that the Holodomor was not an act of genocide but a "mere famine".[24]" Both paragraphs are well supported by references. For instance, each country added to the list above was supported by a reference within edit comments. I can't find anything not neutral about this text. Again, my opinion could be subjective, so I need your explanation of why you deleted this material.--Andrew Alexander 02:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

    No personal info infringement

    Over at my talk page, 70.25.152.39 has tried to guess my name (here). Without either confirming or denying that this is correct, I want to point out that this was an infringement of the 'No Personal Information' rule. I would like for this to be deleted permanently, if possible. Bucketsofg 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant revisions were deleted per your request. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Keystrokes

    We the editors at Freemasonry are convinced by this user's actions that he is a sock of User:Lightbringer AKA User:Basil Rathbone. He has gamed 3RR on the article, used misdleading edit summaries, and now that the page has been protected, Keystrokes has taken to vandalizing the RFC page we have, as well as personally attacking both myself and JASpencer on the Talk:Freemasonry page, wherein he also makes his biases clear. The one valid point he makes is pursuant to another related page, and it is like that because of his actions (the article was rewritten, and the summary has yet to be updated due to constant vandalism and edit-warring). Would it be possible to speed up the sockcheck, or get some sort of intervention besides the protect? The problem is not the article, but the user. MSJapan 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keystrokes has been blocked for WP:3RR. If when the block expires he continues disrupting WP, place a message here again and we shall take care of it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Colignatus, escalated

    I asked earlier for Colignatus (talk · contribs) to be blocked for making personal threats against me, when he was threatening to contact my MIT dean to try to intimidate me into allowing his POV original research on voting system articles. Other admins weren't willing to block him at the time, encouraging an RfC instead.

    Joseph Lorenzo Hall, who has come to my defense in the discussion and endorsed the RfC, is now the target of personal threats himself:

    "I noticed that you are at SIMS, so now I have to write to Hal Varian, if he's still there. Why don't you behave decently, it would have saved us all a great deal ?" -- Colignatus

    Colignatus has been warned several times that he can be blocked for such threats. Since he is not actually being blocked, however, he has the opportunity to extend his threats to more people. Every day that this RfC goes on, as well as the RfAr that would probably have to follow it, is an opportunity for Colignatus to make more threats against diligent Wikipedia contributors. I maintain that he should be blocked now, indefinitely, by an uninvolved admin.

    I quote the policy on threats at WP:NPA:

    Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.

    Yes, the situation does fall under both "other" clauses. Editors have been banned for threatening to contact employers in the past, though, and I think contacting academic superiors falls along the same lines. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This behaviour is increasingly distressing. As I cannot find any edits of Colignatus' that are not either self promotion or personal attacks, despite several warnings, I've blocked him indefinitely. If he is able to demonstrate to me or any other admin that he will not engage in this behaviour further, he may be unblocked, but if the behaviour does continue after being unblocked, then I expect that he will be blocked again.--Sean Black (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He just send me the following e-mail: 

    Geachte heer Koot,

Ik zag dat u een block signaal op mijn user page heeft gezet.
Wonderlijk dat zoiets kan.

Maar, u studeert wiskunde aan de univ. van Utrecht. 

Twee punten dan:

(a) Wanneer u Richard Gill kent, moet u maar eens naar mij vragen.

(b) Wellicht wilt u mijn concept brief aan de hoogleraren van MIT en SIMS lezen, die ik
nu in arre moede op mijn talk page heb geplaatst. Wanneer Rspeer en anderen niet zo vol
onbegrip waren en mij wat tijd hadden gegund, dan had dit allemaal niet hoeven gebeuren. 

Met vriendelijke groet,

Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus

    Basically asking me if I know Richard Gill (a professor at the math department where I study). —Ruud 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Wilkes seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned user DW

    To my mind, multiple hardbanned User:NightCrawler alias User:JillandJack alias User:DW is certainly identical with Ted Wilkes. For facts supporting this view, see also [155]. Here is a debunking edit by NightCrawler:

    PLEASE NOTE: I, NightCrawler, have never attacked anybody at Wikipedia, the record of contributions will show hard work creating quality non-copyright violated articles to the best of abilities and go about fixing numerous links, inserting full birth/death dates when only a year is listed and then posting that info to the “year” page. Nightcrawler never interferes in others work, ever. However, while NightCrawler never has and never will attack anybody, this User most certainly will respond forcefully to an attack on me through lies, innuendo or other conduct unacceptable to Wikipedia policy. Thank you for showing respect to ALL Wikipedia users.

    See [156]. This is remarkably near to expressions frequently used by Ted Wilkes in defense of his own misbehavior:

    1. Note that User:Ted Wilkes never inserted statements from less that unimpeachable sources that in fact contradicted these statements by the Crime Magazine personal website etc. Instead, I put them on the Talk page with detailed rebuttal that was ignored by Onefortyone. See [157].
    2. I am the one who requested this page be protected. For the record, I NEVER removed any link to The Guardian, EVER. Before making such a statement, it is best to check the facts. See [158].
    3. NOTE: "to engage in prostitution" is TENTH in Webster's order of definition but again, Guralnick never once used the word in that context – ever. See [159]

    Furthermore, both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes contributed to the List of Canadian musicians and to the List of people who died in road accidents. See [160] and [161]. Both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes are interested in the history of motor racing. See [162], [163], [164], [165] and [166], etc.

    In the past, DW, NightCrawler and JillandJack also contributed to the Bugatti article. See [167]. In addition, DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack and User:Karl Schalike contributed to the List of Quebecers. See [168]. Finally, both Karl Schalike and JillandJack contributed to the List of racing drivers. See [169].

    I think, this is evidence enough that DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack (and probably Karl Schalike) are identical with Ted Wilkes, especially in view of the fact that they are all logging in from Canada.

    The case of Karl Schalike is somewhat different and confusing though, as he made edits in support of the view that Adolf Hitler may have been homosexual. Ted Wilkes, on the other hand, is frequently deleting contributions which prove that some celebrity stars may have been gay. However, between 29 March 2005 and 2 February 2006, there were only three Wikipedia contributions by Karl Schalike, two of which were significantly made in defense of Ted Wilkes: [170] and [171]. Furthermore, this edit by Karl Schalike is certainly an allusion to, if not a parody of, my own contribution here. If Karl Schalike is indeed identical with Ted Wilkes, then it is quite obvious that this user endeavours to game the system by poking fun at serious topics.

    In my opinion, it is high time to hardban Ted Wilkes alias DW for all of his system-disrupting activities. Onefortyone 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: It is WAY TOO LATE for Checkuser at this point, since DW and many of the original sockpuppets lasted edited YEARS ago. --TML1988 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Karl Schalike and Danny B., two other supposed aliases of Ted Wilkes? It is very interesting that a relatively new user has deleted exactly those passages from the Nick Adams article which support the view that Adams had homosexual leanings and reverted the Elvis and Me article to exactly the version preferred by Ted Wilkes. Could it be that User:Danny B. is related to, or identical with, Ted Wilkes? See [172] and [173]. It is certainly no coincidence that both Danny B. and Ted Wilkes contributed to the following Wikipedia articles: [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], etc. Their editing interests are very similar, if not identical. Onefortyone 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser may still be practical. Naturally a checkuser on Ted Wilkes will recover his IP. Angelique, Nightcrawler and the other puppets were all identified by manual checks done by developers (essentially ur-checkuser), and I suspect details of that (the names of the specific ISPs involved) will be in the various talk pages regarding each sock (or perhaps user:Tim Starling and user:Angela, who were involved with said checking will remember). Off the top of my head I seem to remember DW being located in the Great Lakes area of Canada (although I could be entirely wrong on that one). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can also remember that DW is located in the Great Lakes area of Canada. I think this information comes from User:Angela who had much experience with DW in the past. Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See [183], [184], [185], [186] and [187]. It should be noted, too, that administrator Jtdirl also thinks that "there is a widespread rumour that Wilkes is our old pal DW. The edits are the same: find one topic and flog it to death by writing every conceivable article about it. Wilkes's big issue is actors. Like DW sports (horse racing) seems a thing with him. If it is clearly established that he is DW he will be banned permanently instantly like all his other sockpuppets and trolls." See [188]. Onefortyone 21:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have recently been going through the images uploaded by User:JillandJack, and I do notice a number of similarities between them and those uploaded by User:Ted Wilkes. Both have the (bad) habit of not providing sources for images they deem to be in the public domain, e.g. Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:LoisWeber.jpg (Ted Wilkes). Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g. Image:NikideSaintPhalle.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:Noah-beery-jr.jpg. Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source URL: Image:BFbryant.jpg. This was another habit of JillandJack--I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. I find it quite plausible that this is another DW clone. Chick Bowen 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DW was apparently from Elliott Lake in Northern Ontario, if that helps. I think we had an understanding with DW that if he came back, stopped uploading copyrighted images, and stopped being a troll (as he was as Angelique and JillandJack), and generally edited in such a way that it was not obviously him, he would be allowed to stay. Whatever the problem is here, it doesn't seem that Ted Wilkes should be banned simply for being DW (if he is). Adam Bishop 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo Wales has banned user DW and his many sockpuppets indefinitely. See Wikipedia:List of banned users. When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account, according to Wikipedia policy, can likewise be blocked. See [189]. It should also be taken into account that Wilkes already made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling and was blocked for one week. See [190] and [191]. He has again been temporarily blocked for breaches of WP:Point including posting deliberate mispresentation of an arbcom ruling, edit warring, accusations of lying against multiple users (including calling one user a "convicted liar" and other misbehaviours). See [192]. This means that he will continue gaming the system if nobody puts a stop to this. Onefortyone 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, Ted Wilkes is indeed uploading copyrighted images with incomplete sources, just as DW and JillandJack did. Chick Bowen 23:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have extended Ted Wilkes's block for another 48 hours while we work this out. Chick Bowen 03:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by user 87.65.151.70

    Vandalism of articles on Ken Livingstone and Brian Cant

    Warned. Please report vandalism to WP:VIP (for complex vandalism) or WP:AIV (for simple vandalism like this, assuming the editor has been warned and continues to vandalize) instead of here. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking UAE?

    I got this mail:

    I tried to edit something today only to find my IP is blocked.
    I realise you continually block UAE IP addresses, but previously logged in users were still able to edit.
    Please could you sort out this situation as soon as possible. I know our ISP in this country is totally fked up using about two different IP addresses for over a million internet users, but it's kind of annoying that wikipedia members with genuine intent have to suffer for the sake of a few sad trolls and vandals.
    How about creating a "safe" list of users in the UAE who can still edit no matter what their IP is?

    I don't know which IP he means (I've asked and await a reply) (this is my block log).

    Anyone care to review? William M. Connolley 23:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If UAE means United Arab Emirates it might well be the block of User:MB. —Ruud 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    195.229.106.18 was blocked as an open proxy so that might be causing the problem as well. —Ruud 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlosvillarreal (Sock Puppet?)

    Carlosvillarreal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Original research, removing segments of article due to political biases, very selective of adhering to Wikipedia policy, refuses to behave appropriately after admin Will BeBack had to protect the page due to Carlos' constant manipulation of the page, suspected sock puppet due to entirety of user's edits being on one article -- MSTCrow 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: I protected National Lawyers Guild due to the activity of several editors who were edit warring without seeking consensus on the talk page. I don't know anything about the sock puppet allegation, there may be socks working on the article. -Will Beback 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BBIH

    This user has been blocked and is constantly creating sockpuppets asking for unblock, which has been repeatedly denied. See User talk:BorgHunter and User talk:ESkog for examples. I'm a bit new to the admin thing - is there anything we can do but keep blocking as they come? (ESkog)(Talk) 04:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Attacks

    User:Garglebutt has a personal attack[193] on me on his UserTalk page. He placed it there after disagreeing with me about the content of a number of articles. It contains a false allegation against me that is itself the subject of legal proceedings. I have asked for action to be taken to remove it and no action has been taken. One administrator even asserts that an allegation of this kind is not a personal attack but fails to explain how. I have read the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and they are very clear. I would like it removed and for Garglebutt to be blocked for doing this. It follows a pattern of his personal attacks calling other editors idiots, criminals and other terms of abuse for which he has already been warned. --2006BC 05:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=43397586"