Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
"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]
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]
I can confirm that many of these accounts are sockpuppets (I simply haven't checked them all). I recommend dealing with the issue by blocking all by the main account, and then selectively sprotecting the articles in question, if IP editing or sockpuppeting continues, but I welcome other input. Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the confirmation. Hearing no objections, I will block the registered accounts except User:CantStandYa. I will semiprotect articles on which these IPs are seen to edit in the future. -Will Beback 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After consultations and review, it appears that the "Anon Texan" is a different person from "Shran/CantStandYa". They may have used the same IP ocassionally, and have both edited a couple of obscure articles, but other evidence indicates they are separate users. I think that we have adequately dealt with the Shran issues, or at least as best we can, but the Texas Anon problems are different. Therefore I'll split this out and post the Texas Anon material by itself. -Will Beback 17:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a new section about Anon Texan, and revised the listing to indicate that they are no longer linked. I apologize to all parties for the error. -Will Beback 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator who has been trying to mediate a dispute on this article -- see Talk:Upper Canada College. An anonymous editor is not satisfied with my atttempt at mediation. It would be useful to have another administrator take a look at this. If I have overstepped my bounds as an administrator, I would like to know as I am relatively new at this. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That anon is definatly not helping things, and certainly seems to be alone in his POV about the changes to the page. I strongly encourage other admins to take a look at this before it gets (more) out of hand. --InShaneee 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A newly-registered user, who does not appear to be the anon user has requested the semi-protection be lifted so that the anon editor can be allowed to demonstrate good faith. This has been supported by another newly-registered user, and by a couple of other anon editors. I believe that lifting semi-protection would allow the anon editor to return to his disruptive behaviour, but would respect the decision of another administrator to lift semi-protection if s/he sees fit. See Talk:Upper Canada College#Lifting semi-protection for the discussion. thanks.Ground Zero | t 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a lot of time this morning reading the UCC talk page; as well as having tracked the discussion on and off for a few days. I think the semi-protection should not be lifted at this point. The anon user is not, in my opinion, acting in good faith. Requesting that basic, well-known facts be sourced is unreasonable. To do so repeatedly is annoying at best, and may be regarded as trolling by some. If the anon has issues with any specific basic fact stated in the article, then s/he should provide an alternative, which would of course require appropriate citation. The point of Wikipedia:Verifiability is not to source basic facts, but rather to cite facts that may not be accepted by everyone. Mindmatrix 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now lifted semi-protection in the hope that it is no longer necessary. Ground Zero | t 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At present, Wiktionary is carrying a message saying "AOL users are presently blocked from editing Wiktionary pending contact from AOL. We apologize for the inconvenience. For more information please visit the IRC channel.". And it's not April 1. -Splashtalk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good riddance to bad rubbish, we should block them on enwiki as well. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article, AOL serves nearly 24 million subscribers. Whatever may be the difficulties encountered in dealing with sundry AOL users, the suggestion that they are categorically (or even generally) "bad rubbish" is wholly preposterous. Joe 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, it wouldn't be true if AOL would actually deal with their delinquent users but since AOL doesn't give a fuck many many many AOL users run rampant and commit huge amounts of vandalism to the point where it starts to become mind boggling. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that AOL subscribers are inherently worse netizens than individuals who use other ISPs. The problem is the proxy server system that AOL uses, where a single individual in a single session will appear to come from a new AOL IP address with each successive edit. This makes it extraordinarily inconvenient to deal with a vandal from AOL, because we cannot block them effectively without blocking all of AOL. In contrast, editors through most other ISPs will tend to have at least a semi-static IP address which makes it possible to block troublemakers without causing collateral damage to other editors.
Additionally, the rapidly changing (apparent) IP of each editor probably makes it very difficult for AOL (if they wanted to) to associate specific edits with a specific real-world individual. This in turn hampers one of our last-resort options in dealing with vandals—contacting an ISP to get them disconnected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's great for file sharing, AOL couldn't associate a client with any specific ip, even if a court told them to, lawsuits are virtually impossible! oh wait, that has nothing to do with this--64.12.116.65 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also, someone really should tell them that the 172.x.x.x users behave like normal static ips, so they dont need to be range blocked, same for AOl canada ip ranges, i think--64.12.116.65 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requireing them to log in would not be blocking the 24 million users, I think we should make them log in. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At eBay in the early days, there was a similar problem with AOL, not just because of the IPs, but because AOL not only allows but encourages members to have multiple accounts -- and the promiscuous way in which AOL hands out accounts (how many AOL CDs can one person use?) compounded the problem. This was the source of a lot of the rules eBay had to develop on the fly -- for example, a list of domains from which eBay membership required further identification in the form of a credit card. This became onerous enough for AOL users that it was likely part of the reason AOL and eBay started collaborating on various levels, in particular user validation; my guess is that AOL based eBay users were numerous enough that their complaints to both companies caught AOL management's attention (eBay was aware of the problem almost from the very start.) Unfortunately, the only way this maps onto Wikipedia is to require registration with a validated email address from editors from AOL. Which isn't a bad idea; yes, it's making special rules for AOL users, but so what? AOL's overly trusting IP usage policy makes it necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so much for the egalitarian promise of wikipedia...
If you want open anonymous editing get a real ISP. Ashibakatock 04:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback abuse
I seek advice on the disruptive behaviour of User:Piotrus who, as far as I can recall, never uses rollback for reverting vandalism, but reserves the button for content disputes only. I repeatedly demonstrated to him the impropriety of his behaviour and quoted the appropriate passage from WP:RV: Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it. If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. Yet he recently abused the rollback again and, despite my remonstrances, yet again. I wonder how this sort of behaviour can remain unpunished. Probably a short block is needed to stop his disruptive activities. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to let another admin rule on this one. But. Just wanted to say that there is no *policy* per say against using rollback in the way that he is using it. What you quoted isn't a policy. So I'm not sure it's blockable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that your reply is very helpful. As his actions clearly abuse admin tools, should I seek defrocking, as the guy also practises wheel warring, copyvios, etc, or should I request for comment and arbitration, as the standard proceedings are? --Ghirla-трёп- 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed poor Wikietiquette to use admin rollback for non-vandalism reverts. However, equally, looking at the edit history of that article I see you making uncivil edit summaries like "please stop reintroducing your sloppy edits, deficient spellings en masse" and "rm rant about Poles' civilisatory mission among those barbarian ruskies... yawn". Be nice to each other and move along. — Matt Crypto 12:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has got to be approaching the record for most used header on this page. Any chance he will ever give up and just take his punishment like a man? --LV(Dark Mark) 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. Rampant immaturity is one of his most obvious traits.--Sean Black(talk) 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am bound to say that is great coming from you lot. ElectricRay 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of these should be banned. I'll try to rvt his edits. All his images should also be speedy deleted. I don't know what the policy is for deleting a page in the user space, but User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations should go too. --JW1805(Talk) 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself wondering if ElectricRay is doing something contrary to the best interests of the Wikipedia community by encouraging and colluding with Stark sockpuppets. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then, in my humble submission, you have an overdeveloped sense of what is in the best interests of the Wikipedia community, Monsieur Gordon. Speak for yourself, by all means, but not "the Wikipedia Community", for which you have no mandate to speak, and as to the better interests of which, you have no better insight, than me. I'm just as much a part of the Wikipedia community as you, after all. Monsieur JW, why delete my user page? My contributions to it are perfectly legitimate, aren't they? ElectricRay 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see where I expressed any mandate at all. I asked a question. I'm unsure about the answer. If I were sure about the answer, I'd already have blocked you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would you block me, JPG? ElectricRay 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about the answer, as I said. You're conspiring with a banned user to assist him in evading his ban. That might be sufficient, under the rubric of "disrupting Wikipedia". Proof of disruption? The time your collusion with Stark has caused us to spend on it here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JPGordon, this is utter nonsense, as you know. I established a subpage in userspace, away from the Encyclopaedia, which virtually no-one could see, and on it conducted a conversation with a person you and your chums don't happen to like, because I had (at the time) no other way of communicating with him whatsoever, and I was interested in the conversation, precisely because I didn't want to disrupt wikipedia. If I could be bothered with the sort of pissy little squabbles you admins seem to revel in, I would challenge Sean's delete on the grounds that it is outside policy, but I really can't be bothered. The establishment of the page and the conversation on it had absolutely no disruptive effect on wikipedia at all, and indeed probably a negative disruptive effect because, for two weeks or so, you didn't even know it was there, and presumably got on with being oifficious to someone else instead, while Zephram and his sockpuppets were spending most of their time talking, inoffensively, to me. Eventually, between you, you hunted the page down - bully for you - but the page was disruptive in no way shape of form. As it happens, I now have an alternative method of communicating with Zephram Stark, so I don't need to establish furtive sub-pages any more.
The page should be deleted. There is no reason we should be hosting a forum for chats with banned users. Jkelly 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all offending images, and removed all text references to any blocked users. I have adopted the full content as my own, under the General Use licence. None of it is, to my mind, objectionable, although I will gladly remove any specific content that you can point to that you consider objectionable (for any reason other than the bare fact that it was originally generated by a banned user). I don't mean to cause the admins trouble. I'm just minding my own business, a course of action I commend heartily to you all. ElectricRay 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations because its mostly designed to host edits by a banned user, the content that is actually relevant to Wikipedia is mostly personal attacks on other users, and because it doesn't contribute to building an encyclopedia in any way.--Sean Black(talk) 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sean, while of course I think what you say is entirey wrong, you hold the whip hand, and there's nothing I can do to stop you, but could I ask one thing of you: could you please email the text of the deleted page to electric dot ray at btopenworld dot com, simply because while you might not value it, I do. I give you my word I won't re-post it, or any reworking or other manifestation of it, on any Wikimedia site. ElectricRay 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ElectricRay, you don't seem to understand that Zephram is banned from Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if his edits are objectionable or not. He is not allowed to contribute in any way, shape, or form to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it's a talk page, user page, or article. I certainly consider your attempts to help him evade the ban as disruptive to Wikipedia. --JW1805(Talk) 00:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, JW1805, I completely understand that Zephram's been banned. I just couldn't care less. Would you like to block me, for being "disruptive to Wikipedia" as you put it? Will that make you feel better? Good grief. 00:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
ER, what you're doing is like allowing Al-Qaeda to operate in the western world, which is utterly unacceptable. If you wish to communicate with banned users, please do so in an off-Wiki setting. --TML1988 03:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody has done so yet, I am hereby inventing a new law which might not yet be valid but will be eventually: just take Godwin's Law and replace "Nazis" and "Hitler" with "Al Qaeda" and "Osama bin Laden" respectively. That was pretty over the top even for Zephram puppets and their fan club. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, applying Gordon's law, that means I win? "There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned al Qaeda has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress". I just knew you'd see it from my point of view eventually. Good show! ElectricRay 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the comparison of Zephram Stark to al-Qaeda was pretty accurate, actually. ;-D SlimVirgin(talk) 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of stirring up a conversation that may have ended, I'd like to point out that there are a million websites on the Internet, some of which allow anyone to have concersations with anyone else. If you want to have a conversation with a banned user, please take it to one of those. I'm sure no one will mind if you leave a note pointing Zephram there. -- llywrch 04:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can some admin go ahead and ban these accounts? --JW1805(Talk) 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of these are blatent. (i.e. Jamal...) A little help please. Thanks. --LV(Dark Mark) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm zapping 'em. Pretty funny, though. I looked at User:ZathrasOne and noticed that he's kinda halfway pretending to be me! Anyway, someone else please put the puppet templates on those pages? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've got them all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to invite any neutral admin and user to look at this case:
InShaneee has threatened to block me, because I asked a user to comment on something he posted on another users talk page. He believes that this action is a ‘blatant’ personal-attack, ‘plain and simple’. here, and of course he has removed my comments on this user’s page using his admin tools.
InShaneee, an admin claiming to be neutral on the case has repeatedly given me and other Iranian contributors "personal attack" warnings. At first he was correct, I was knew to Wikipedia and did not know how to handle users such as User:Aucaman, however recently he has threatened to ban me, because I asked Aucaman to comment on this this where he called the founder of my country Cyrus of Persia, an illiterate murderer in Persian language.
InShanee assumed good faith on behalf of this user (apparently), however when I reported the case to him, he came and warned me that he is going to ban me soon.
I believe InShaneee wants to ban me for unfair reasons. I have only been active on Wikipedia as a contributor for less than a month and if you look at the request for comment section you will see what I have had to deal with. And now I am being threatened to be banned simply because I asked Aucaman to comment why he has said that about the founder of my country. This was of particular importance to me as he is repeatedly editing Iran-related articles and I believe such users who have anti-Iranian POV should not be allowed to do so (as it is creating a lot of hassle for the rest of the contributors to fix it all up again).
If I am wrong in assuming that inShanee is ‘ought to get me’ on this case, please let me know. Thanks. --Kash 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, the diffs provided by InShanee aren't what I'd call blatant attacks; they were a bit confrontational, but within the bounds of acceptability, and certainly not grounds for blocking. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Atleast I have some assurance now that I am not totally insane --Kash 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good, I was just writing up my own summary to post here (as follows). I attempted to warn User:Khashayar Karimi about harrassing other users (this is one of the many users involved in the Aucaman RfC and whatnot). He's been posting on Aucaman's page demanding an apology over something he said on an article talk page, and has been getting increasingly abusive about it ("What do you have to say for yourself?", "You should be ashamed", ect), while spamming other user's talk pages in an attempt to get him banned ("Do you think he is fit to edit?"). My warnings were met with nothing but more accusations against Aucaman and, more importantly, repeated mocking ("I almost laughed when I read this", "such amazingly good faith", "such amazingly fair admins"). I didn't want to take any further action then and there since the last comments were against me personally, but I would appreciate any other admins looking into this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by InShaneee (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, must have lost my sig in the copy/paste from my work page. --InShaneee 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
InShaneee thanks for your comment here. First of all my object is ofcourse to your whole attitude! you call me asking about a user's comment 'harassment', yet you come and warn to block me for something which is obviously not personal attack! I thought an admin on Wikipedia would know the policies better than that!
Secondly ofcourse as you said yourself - people get angry and especially someone like me who has spent the last few weeks trying to make this user (Aucaman) come to his senses, you should appreciate that I would get a little angry and ask why he has done this. 'What do you have to say for yourself' is not what I call abusive. He had called the founder of my country, whom I respect a lot, an illeterate murderer. You assumed no good faith on my behalf, yet you assumed all the best on his! why is that? and as we both know, this is not the first time. You have done this to several other Iranian editors too.
Thirdly you did not submit this - I did, and I would like admins to look at it. I assume (and I think I have the right to on this case) that you would have probably banned me sooner or later if I had not got people to look in to it --Kash 23:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is going to need some attention, because the entire thing is getting complicated. I've been a bit involved in this issue, reminding some of the editors involved to remain civil. In an already controversial article, Aucaman made a pretty blatantly incivil and harsh comment, which he has since acknowledged was a mistake. There are now a handful of editors demanding that he apologize to them and repeatedly bringing the incident up. These other editors are actually getting to a point where their demands are starting to be disruptive, and now admins are getting pulled into the conflict. Because the comment by Aucaman was made several days ago, there's not much administrators can do except tell him not to make more offensive comments, which I have, and to which he was amenable. All that administrators can do is enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA so that they do not occur in the future. The editors who were angry about Aucaman's edits are now even angrier because it appears that we're siding with Aucaman, when really, we're just trying to start enforcing the policies in this situation. As the above comments indicate, some editors believe it is their role to get Aucaman to "come to his senses", when, of course, that's not their job. Compounding the issue, of course, is the actual encyclopedia article which it will take some cool heads with strong understandings of the related suject matter to get any sort of resolution to (and even then, I suspect that the page won't cool down too much). I don't have the expertise in the subject to weigh in, except to enforce the policies when they get stepped on or broken. In any case, long story short, I don't think InShaneee is "out to get" anybody, and the notion that InShaneee was gearing up to ban anybody (barring, of course, the type of gross policy violation that would get anybody banned) is just silly. It's just a very touchy issue that's going to need more sets of admin eyes on it before it can get resolved. JDoorjamTalk 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JDoorjam. OK - I understand that it is not my or anyone else's job to bring him to his senses, correct. I agree and I apologize for mentioning that. I must admit I will be happy as long as admins to get involved in this issue, because some admins (and I am greatful) do acknoweldge that he is not helpful, which is great! however as seen for example in here no one wants to take the case on board properly. I mean Aucaman made this comment while trying to say that he is innocent at the same time on his RfC!
Also I would like to assume good faith on this case with InShaneee..but I have been threatened to be banned for 'personal attacks' which was clearly not the case here! atleast I'd appreciate it if admins (atleast a neutral one) could explain to me what he is warning me for using proper terms so I would not do it again. I am still learning. --Kash 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has warned me about telling Diyako to stop his disruptive behaviour which I had reported here.
I am not sure what exactly I am supposed to do, I report a user for distruptive behaviour, then I tell him to stop, and an admin comes and tells me not to do that?!! --Kash 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable User Name?
User:The Molester has just been created. Their only edits so ar are to Talk:Lolicon. Is "The Molester" an acceptable user name? It seems like an offensive user name to me, but maybe that is partly due to the location I first encountered the user (implication of child molestation). Opinions? Johntex\talk 02:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing The Molester's edit summaries, he's almost definitely the same person. --Rory096 02:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks freakofnurture, did you block them indefinitely? Johntex\talk 02:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's trying to make more socks now, but they're being blocked on sight. John: yes, they're all blocked indef. --Rory096 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the block has now been questioned by Lord Algezera, a relatively new user who has some interesting edits in his/her short contribution history as well. [7], [8]. Advice? Johntex\talk 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I wouldn't disagree with a username block on Algezera (see al-Jazeera). Anyway, just tell him that they were in violation of WP:U. --Rory096 03:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess JDoorjam agrees. --Rory096 03:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sensible. They are brand new so they have invested little in the name, and their first edits are not constructive at all so they are probably just here to troll/disrupt. I'll block them indef and cite WP:U on their Talk page. Johntex\talk 03:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Rory beat me to the message. I've banned that name because of its similarity to Al Jazeera, as Johntex said above. JDoorjamTalk 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I was beaten to the block! I love it when their are enough people in capes to get the job done quickly! Johntex\talk 03:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the agreement at his RFAR was that he could use it in his sig, and there was never a ruling passed that he couldn't use the normal welcome templates. NSLE(T+C) at 07:47 UTC (2006-03-18)
Did you read the edit summaries of those five welcomes? It's still a grossly inappropriate 'welcome' however you look at it. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 15:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read his talkpage. Karmafist is just gaming the system as of late. -ZeroTalk 15:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is going too far, we can wikilawyer about sigs, or we can say that recruiting newbies to a partisan manifesto (whatever its merits) before they've had time to work out wikipedia for themselves is unacceptable however it is done. The arbcom case should be reopened and Karmafist given once last chance to behave, before we ban him for good. --Docask? 16:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration case is still proceeding. Two arbitrators have voted to close, but another two have voted to keep it open. The case would need four net votes to close and has 0 (2 supports - 2 opposes). --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should update that, I suppose. One supporting arbitrator has withdrawn his support, and another arbitrator has voted oppose. So depending on whether or not you count Sam Korn's withdrawn vote as an oppose, it's either 3-1 or 4-1 against closing the Karmafist case. --Tony Sidaway 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summaries on those welcomes are unacceptable; it would appear that Karmafist has abused the assumption of good faith that led me to propose closing the case. I've told him my thoughts on this, and I hope he takes the opportunity to explain himself and proceed in a different manner; if not, well, I've given him a lot of chances now. -- SCZenz 17:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this block as being particularly productive, and it isn't supported by the blocking policy. I have unblocked Karmafist. —Guanaco 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if the disruptiveness continues, what then? --Cyde Weys 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, Guanaco unblocking somebody without consensus? Who would have thought that that would ever happen? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you're still whining about my actions in dealing with Michael. —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reblocked him for 24. In addition to the above he has resorted to calling a fellow admin a 'thug' [14] and a 'vandal' [15]. He just keeps pushign it, well enough. --Docask? 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this re-block. The welcome edit summaries are not the only issues here. Rx StrangeLove 21:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who professes to want to clean up wikipedia, can't go arround calling other admins 'thugs'. He of all peiople should know better. --Docask? 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some admins on Wikipedia act like thugs; the term is often appropriate. Of course, it generally should be avoided (NPA). —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents on all this. First of all, Guanaco (and everyone else) should know that blocks for disruption, with administrative consensus, are supported by blocking policy. I should note, though, that Karmafist did explain and apologize for the edit summaries at the top of this section. I would not have done this block myself, but Karmafist is either playing games with us or is very angry, and in either case some time to cool down might improve the situation. -- SCZenz 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I talked with him on IRC about this. I think the main problem is that he's very angry and doesn't have an outlet, so he makes provocative comments in edit summaries. I told him that if he's having a bad day, it's best to take it off-wiki and conform with WP:CIVIL. Sometimes it's just best to write a bunch of insults in a text editor, and then trash the file. Better to release it all in private than let it bottle up and then escape onto the wiki. Johnleemk | Talk 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent idea. You should put that into whichever is the relevant guideline/be-nice page. -Splashtalk 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the new block, but 24 hours is unusually long for mild personal attacks and disruption by an established contributor. —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24 hours is not too long of a block for disruption, especially when hundreds of innocent newbies are being caught in the crossfire of some silly wikipolitic war. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually an 'estabilished contributor' should know better, and the behaviour is not issolated but compounding earlier disruption and misue of edit summaries. Actually, I think 24 hrs is extremely light, and certainly should not be shortened. --Docask? 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is light, but blocking is not intended to be used as a punishment. —Guanaco 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case it's being used to prevent him from disruptive welcoming after he was repeatedly asked not to do so over a period of weeks. If he continues after the block expires he will merely earn himself a longer block. --Cyde Weys 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the block was probably a very good idea in this case and I support it. My interpretation of Karmafist's recent statements is that he is intentionally and maliciously setting out to break Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. If I'm right and we don't block as and when appropriate, we're sending him the wrong signals. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654, the proposer and last remaining supporter of the motion to close, has withdrawn it, saying: "I think it's clear from these recent edits he made [16][17][18][19][20] (look at the edit summaries) that he's gaming the system. I withdraw the motion." --Tony Sidaway 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's furthur supported by this edit, which states : As I understand it, Karmafist is banned from welcoming people with anything other than the standard template. He may not include links to personal advocacy pages or use political language in his welcome message, signature, or edit summary. "Welcoming" shall be interpreted broadly by admins. Karmafist is also placed on civility parole. Admins may block Karmafist for up to one week should he violate any of these remedies. After five such blocks, the maximum length of such a block shall be increased to one year. Johnleemk | Talk 12:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC). -ZeroTalk 16:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. I simply considered it relevant. -ZeroTalk 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :-) Sam Korn(smoddy) 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. You're okay. :) -ZeroTalk 20:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is relevant that it hasn't yet passed. The interpretation given by Johnleemk, as clerk, and quoted above by Zero, will not apply unless and until the proposed remedies are passed and the case is closed. Any remedies applying at that time will be announced on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its passed now. It is definitely relevant that it is the reached desision and as such is fully valid. The case is now closed and the beforementioned statement by Johnleemk is no longer proposed. -ZeroTalk 21:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think some admin attention, perhaps to remind edit warriors not to disrupt, may be in order. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 08:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the editors has passed the 3RR point. AvB ÷ talk 09:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pro-Lick, a recently registered editor whose activity is essentially limited to fighting over the abortion article, seems to have some ideas about organizing talk pages in certain ways and removing comments of other editors that don't fit his scheme. I warned him about that, as did another editor, and he removed most of our comments from his talk page in reply, but he hasn't removed anything else at Talk:Abortion. However, he's begun making personal attacks, so I warned him about that as well. I'd appreciate it if another admin or two could keep an eye out, and maybe step in if necessary, so that there are voices other than mine telling him just how we don't operate here. I think he thinks I disagree with him politically, which is funny because I think I don't. Maybe a liberal more flaming than I could have a word with him. Anyway, thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing GTBacchus. User:Pro-Lick needs a reality check. Currently s/he keeps changing the consensus introduction of the article example. Admin intervention would be greatly appreciated. AvB ÷ talk 14:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked for violating 3RR seven times in the past three months; twice in the past three days. He's taken swings at everyone who has come near him, especially Sceptre, who gave him a four-day block for his latest (read: seventh) 3RR violation. This is becoming a disruption This has become a disruption, and needs to be dealt with before it becomes an ArbCom case. I'm inclined to support a month long block, to enforce enough time for him to read WP:3RRvery carefully and get the picture that disrupting the site will not be tolerated. Of course, before doing so, I want to hear others' opinions; opinions? EssjayTalk • Contact 09:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3RR blocks by six different administrators, a tendentious history, and now he's starting to blank portions of his talk page. I'd say a month off is entirely appropriate. There's no reason why people should have to keep putting up with this. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially me, just clean off a wikibreak close to taking another one (WP:ESP/ALERT). Or User:Leyasu, who got an arbcom ruling restriction to one revert a day while warring with this user. Sceptre(Talk) 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the user blasted me on IRC for dealing with their unblock request and was promptly kickbanned, no proof that the IRC user was the WP user but its too close not to raise an eyebrow -- Tawker 19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page-blanking is nothing new; Deathrocker has continually done this since December. As a result, he/she received several redundant 3RR warnings from users who probably didn't realize that he/she already had been warned (1, 2, 3, 4). He/she also routinely removed messages pertaining to various other issues (including general edit warring, vandalism, incivility, and the talk page-blanking itself). A one-month block seems appropriate. —David Levy 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im violating my Ban by doing this, but im using an anon to add this comment here. Ive set up a rather extensive list of Deathrockers actions as part of my user page, which is linked here, here and here. This also includes the extensive revert war on his talk page. All diffs are supplied so there is no hear say or attacks by me or anyone else. I hope this helps somewhat for the purposes of deciding his case, wether for, against, or just for reference/comment. 86.132.130.69 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Ley Shade)[reply]
Given that I've been involved, I'm not comfortable setting the month long block, but it certainly seems to have drawn consensus. Can an uninvolved admin (or one more rogue than I) set it, please? EssjayTalk • Contact 08:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get something against Deathrocker, though, to stop the two edit warring. With Leyasu limited to 1RR, and Deathrocker still on 3RR, there needs to be levelling of the field 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems there is no other way for me to voice my side other than this, (because some dunce has blocked my talkpage), Leyasu did the same so will I as my original ban is now up.
Firstly; I delete all messages I receive which is stated on my page! Don’t like that? Don’t message me. I did not "delete the warning" from the last ban, I kept it on while the ban still stood, I deleted redundant talk.
It is no different than people archiving their messages (they are still there for people to see if they wish), please tell me where it says I can't do that. And I can’t delete blocking logs so “boom” goes your silly little theory of “hiding“ anything.
Second to Tawker; I do not even use ICR, period. Either for Wiki or personal. Let alone "blast" you on it.
I put an “unblock” tag on my page, as I had been blocked for 4 days, for 3RR, which WP:3RR states is not Wikipedia policy as admins can only block “up to 24 hours” for 3RR, a non admin user “Tawker” kept removing the tag, while the discussion was in process.. and before an admin has looked at the case.
EssJay shows up to “look at the case” threatens me claiming I’m attempting to “game the system”, even thought I was just going by WP:3RR, EssJay then threatened to block me for a week, if I put the tag back on my page (which is first ridiculous, blocked for requesting help?? haha and second, I didn’t re-add it after that).. I instead emailed the user, through Wiki to discuss the matter, to which they were still hostile, abrasive, and claiming Non existing Wikipedia policies to be golden, going against WP:3RR
I have never once claimed the policies don't apply to me, and do to others. Please feel free to show me exactly where I said that, you won’t be able to find it because you’re talking rubbish as usual.
Its also hilarious that you are pretending not to be the IP addresses whose only edits were reverting the articles back to your versions and even using the exact same line as each other in edit summaries once the I.P. address was switched the second time. It wasn't even me who first reported it as been a suspected sock puppet of yours. If you were smart enough to actually check the records, you would know this.
The only people who were siding with your reverts were anonymous I.P.'s which were suspected (not just by me) of been YOUR sock puppets, something which you have been suspected of in the past in totally unrelated debates... actual users who were not suspected of been sock puppets were also reverting your trolling.
Even if I was not involved in the day this went down, you STILL broke your parole anyway, you reverted three perfectly reasonable edits by User:RJN to POV versions by yourself, because you think you own the article Gothic Metal.[21][22][23]
You do not understand the concept that this is an open encyclopaedia where numerous people contribute into working an article, if its not your version, regardless of which user is editing it its "vandalism" according to you, and then after a revert war and both you and who you were warring with are banned, you come straight back with sock puppets.
The only way you can get any sort of pull in your edits is talking straight out of your ass, claiming to quote me on things I have NEVER once said.
There are no “rules” as to how users keep their talk page or user page that I am aware of or have read on here, there was no sexual profanity, or anything of that nature, so again, you’re clutching at straws.
You want Ironic? Here’s Ironic;
1. On your userpage you have a box that says “This user is short sighted.”... no kidding! You see everything that isn’t an edit by you as vandalism, or not worthy of been included in the articles you troll on a regular basis.
2. The fact that you kiss user:Sceptre ass to have an admin on your "side", notice how on your talk page Sceptre said "be careful" trying to save your pathetic hide, did Sceptre give me the same warning beforehand? No... hardly an impartial stance for a so called "admin"... also, somebody who breaks a 3RR deserves the same punishment as somebody who is on parole for past idiocy, and is on a strict "1 revert a day" basis?.. ridiculous and a clear abuse of admin powers.
Examples of Leyasu been a liar and a manipulator
For onlookers here’s a prime example of how devious Leysau is with twisting words...
Example #1.
Deathrocker on Talk:Gothic_metal: Also, stop the personal attacks and lies in the edit summary, I have not been "warned by 3 admins" one of which I have never even heard of, your ignorant behaviour is somewhat overwhelming at times
I was refering to the edit war that was going on at the time
Leyasu on User_talk:Sceptre: Hes taking advantage no end, and just made a comment on the Gothic Metal talk page, that you dont exist!!!
Ok, now where in that sentence did I say Sceptre did not exist? This is prime Leysau in action.. ass kissing an admin, I never even claimed which admin's name was not familiar to me, let alone claiming they didn't exist.
Example #2.
On Leyasu's tribute and rather odd little shrine to me that he/she has gone to the trouble of creating it says;
Quote: Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including called me a liar, cunt, and shit.
This is an other blatant lie, I have called you a liar? Yes (because that is what you are). I have called you shit? No, I referred you to WP:BATSHIT though, asking you to stop the lunacy, Which isn't the same thing.
Called you a cunt? Total bullshit, I have not called a single person on Wikipedia a "cunt" and again you evidence of it either....
I have though called you an idiot, and a liar in the last, because your actions suggest that.
Example #3
Another one of Leyasu's greatest hits from his/her disturbing little shrine to me.
Quote: Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu),.. Admin Sceptre reverted this himself, pointing out to Deathrocker that he cannot attack as being a 'sock puppeter' simply because Deathrocker cannot force his POV onto all articles,.
After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising',
I added a "suspected puppetmaster" tag to Leysau's page, as he/she features on the suspected of using sock puppets page.
An anonymous IP (83.100.146.147) reverted and said "Guess I sock with 217.33.207.195, then (--Sceptre)"... to which I reverted back as that made little to no sense, was suspicious (why would an admin use an annoymous IP?) and had little/nothing to do with the whether Leyasu was suspected of using sock puppets or not, the line I used in the edit summary was.... "unexplained tag removal, it applies correct?"... nowhere did I say in that statement that everybody was “vandalisng“, just more bullshit from Leyasu.
Rather suspiciously my last edit on that userpage was reverted back by (81.157.88.186) who was suspected of being a “sock puppet” of Leyasu and was reported as so on the sockpuppets page...
At this time Leyasu was still blocked, rather suspicious that a so called “newbie”/annoymous I.P. would not only be reverting all edits back to versions by leyasu while he/she was blocked, but also keeping an eye on his/her userpage too?.... very suspicious. Why would a bran new person editing wikipedia for the first time be doing that? They wouldn't.
If I am to be blocked for a month for arguing in edit summary, the other party who was involved “Leyasu” should too. - DeathrockerComment 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To show the Personal attacks and fallacys from the above, i have quoted them with bullet points:
I have never once claimed the policies don't apply to me, and do to others. Please feel free to show me exactly where I said that, you won’t be able to find it because you’re talking rubbish as usual.
Diffs for all Deathrocker's commments and attacks are logged Here, including the one where he called me 'psychotic for having a whole page devoted to harassing him'.
You do not understand the concept that this is an open encyclopaedia where numerous people contribute into working an article, if its not your version, regardless of which user is editing it its "vandalism" according to you, and then after a revert war and both you and who you were warring with are banned, you come straight back with sock puppets.
This is a personal attack. Deathrocker states here i do not know something, when i have been known to let people know when they are acting Meglomanical. Its also wrong when i havent been banned seven times in three months for POV pushing, when Deathrocker has.
The only way you can get any sort of pull in your edits is talking straight out of your ass, claiming to quote me on things I have NEVER once said.
This is another personal attack, in which he just called me an ass. Deathrocker will probally now claim he never one said im an ass.
1. On your userpage you have a box that says “This user is short sighted.”... no kidding! You see everything that isn’t an edit by you as vandalism, or not worthy of been included in the articles you troll on a regular basis.
This is a personal attack at the fact im short sighted and wear glasses.
2. The fact that you kiss user:Sceptre ass to have an admin on your "side", notice how on your talk page Sceptre said "be careful" trying to save your pathetic hide, did Sceptre give me the same warning beforehand? No... hardly an impartial stance for a so called "admin"... also, somebody who breaks a 3RR deserves the same punishment as somebody who is on parole for past idiocy, and is on a strict "1 revert a day" basis?.. ridiculous and a clear abuse of admin powers.
This is a personal attack at both myself and Admin Sceptre, due to Sceptre having made the initial bans, and because there is no animosity, unpolite language, or general hostility between me and the admin. Also, if i had an 'admin on my side', Sceptre wouldnt of banned me.
Example #1. Deathrocker on Talk:Gothic_metal: Also, stop the personal attacks and lies in the edit summary, I have not been "warned by 3 admins" one of which I have never even heard of, your ignorant behaviour is somewhat overwhelming at times
Deathrocker here claims i am a liar, and he has never been warned by any admins. The irony of this is that Admins here have already showed multiple warnings that Deathrocker has deleted from his talk page.
On Leyasu's tribute and rather odd little shrine to me that he/she has gone to the trouble of creating it says;
This is an attack at the Evidence Page that is part of my userpage, which is also being used as my statement in Deathrocker's abbirition case.
Quote: Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including called me a liar, cunt, and shit.
Yes this is on my Evidence Page, here are the Diffs as well, [24], [25].
Another one of Leyasu's greatest hits from his/her disturbing little shrine to me.
Another personal attack at the Evidence Page.
Rather suspiciously my last edit on that userpage was reverted back by (81.157.88.186) who was suspected of being a “sock puppet” of Leyasu and was reported as so on the sockpuppets page...
Reported, by Deathrocker.
If I am to be blocked for a month for arguing in edit summary, the other party who was involved “Leyasu” should too.
This is a plea to block me to achieve a 'beat the opponent' scheme, even though Deathrocker's 'comment' was riddled with personal attacks and infallacys.
I am also going to add this to my Evidence page, so that it can be adminstrated into the Abbirition case. Ley Shade 21:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more shining examples of your ridiculousness, you claim every comment discussing things you have done is a "personal attack".... by your standards you personally attacked me multiple times in that last section due to you claiming I'm "personally attacking" you. Stop crying "wolf".
I find your shrine rather disturbing, you expect me to lie? You aren't an administrator or anything like that, you are a user who is in trouble with ArbiCon, wy are you keeping tabs on me dedicating a whole section of your user page to me? That doesn't strike you as psychotic behaviour?
Again I said you were "talking out of your ass", I didn't say "you are an ass"... this is what I'm talking about with your selective reading and minipulation of comments. You also still can't show anywhere I have ever called anybody on Wikipedia a "cunt" because I never had.
If me suggesting both parties involved should be blocked for the same length of time is "trying to beat an apponent", exactly what is it you were doing when you said "we need something against Deathrock, as the other editor is on a 1 rever parole basis"?? - DeathrockerComment 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have bulletpointed the attacks from this comment, as well:
Yet more shining examples of your ridiculousness, you claim every comment discussing things you have done is a "personal attack".... by your standards you personally attacked me multiple times in that last section due to you claiming I'm "personally attacking" you. Stop crying "wolf".
Deathrocker makes the personal attack of calling me ridiculous for noting that calling me a cunt, liar, bitch, twat, fool, shit, and insulting me for wearing glasses is a personal attack.
I find your shrine rather disturbing, you expect me to lie? You aren't an administrator or anything like that, you are a user who is in trouble with ArbiCon, wy are you keeping tabs on me dedicating a whole section of your user page to me? That doesn't strike you as psychotic behaviour?
Deathrocker here calls me psychotic and claims im not allowed to have an Evidence page because im not an admin, even though other admins first told me to use Evidence pages such as these for 'sandboxes' when building up a case against someone.
Again I said you were "talking out of your ass", I didn't say "you are an ass"... this is what I'm talking about with your selective reading and minipulation of comments. You also still can't show anywhere I have ever called anybody on Wikipedia a "cunt" because I never had.
Deathrocker again makes the personal attack of claiming im 'talking out of my ass', seemingly assuming that its ok to make personal attacks at users.
If me suggesting both parties involved should be blocked for the same length of time is "trying to beat an apponent", exactly what is it you were doing when you said "we need something against Deathrock, as the other editor is on a 1 rever parole basis"??
Deathrocker then makes claim that i made a comment that was made by Admin Sceptre, going a backhanded way about claiming that myself and Admin Sceptre are the same person, [26].
This is more of the personal attacks and disruption of Deathrocker. Ley Shade 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never called you or anybody here a "twat, cunt, bitch or shit"... I refered you to WP:BATSHIT though, as already explained which is not a personal attack, in an attempt for you to stop the lunacy during an edit war, while asking you to join the talk page.
Its not a "personal attack" to call you a liar, because that is what you are and you prove it to me constantly... I don't care where you are, you lie, I'll call you on it. Stop personally attacking me and defaming my character by claiming I have said stuff which I never had.
I've called you an idiot and a liar, that much is true.
Again you are twisting words "We need to get something against Deathrocker, though, to stop the two edit warring. With Leyasu limited to 1RR, and Deathrocker still on 3RR, there needs to be levelling of the field 18:05, 20 March 2006".... was an unsigned comment, I presumed it was you as you were using an IP just a couple of replies above, and it sounds like something you would say.
Again you are talking rubbish, I have never claimed you and Sceptre are the same person, I have stated that I think you kiss Sceptre's ass, correct?... I have never said that I think you are the same person as you claim, your lies aren't even well thought out or following consistantcy, and you wonder why I have in the past refered to some of your actions as idiocy?
And also I didn't say "you can't have a shrine" to me, because you aren't an admin, I asked why you have it and stated that it is odd, as you are just a user who has been blocked plenty of times yourself and you are even on parole. The fact that I find it disturbing and rather creepy that you keep tabs on me in some kinda warped shrine, is just my feelings on the matter.
Oh and Scepter on this comment; "user:Leyasu who got an arbcom ruling restriction to one revert a day while warring with this user."... Leyasu got an arbcom ruling restriction for warring with another user, whos name is user:Danteferno on the Gothic Metal article, check Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu, I'm not even one of the involved parties. - DeathrockerComment 00:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More personal attacks listed below:
Its not a "personal attack" to call you a liar, because that is what you are and you prove it to me constantly... I don't care where you are, you lie, I'll call you on it. Stop personally attacking me and defaming my character by claiming I have said stuff which I never had.
Deathrocker here says its not a personal attack for him to call anyone anything. Thus, he seems to think that its ok to make personal attacks against people, and then expect to be unblocked.
Again you are talking rubbish, I have never claimed you and Sceptre are the same person, I have stated that I think you kiss Sceptre's ass, correct?... I have never said that I think you are the same person as you claim, your lies aren't even well thought out or following consistantcy, and you wonder why I have in the past refered to some of your actions as idiocy?
As can be seen above, Deathrocker inferred that a comment made by Sceptre was made by me, thus inferring that Sceptre and Me are the same person.
And also I didn't say "you can't have a shrine" to me, because you aren't an admin, I asked why you have it and stated that it is odd, as you are just a user who has been blocked plenty of times yourself and you are even on parole. The fact that I find it disturbing and rather creepy that you keep tabs on me in some kinda warped shrine, is just my feelings on the matter.
Further personal attacks concerning the Evidence Page, and claims he hasnt made comments that are clearly quoted above. Ley Shade 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try at "twisting" words again, Leyasu. You continue to personally attack me by A) Claiming I'm personally attacking you B) Twisting my words into your own little perversion.
"Deathrocker here says its not a personal attack for him to call anyone anything."
Yet mores lies, please study this aticle; truth, and try again...
I never said that it is OK for me to call "anyone anything". If I called somebody a "cunt" or "twat", without any evidence of such activity, that would be a personal attack, thus I have not called you or anybody else for that matter, anything of the like.
Calling you a liar when you have clearly tried to distort words I have said and in some cases, totally made them up (and you can't even show where I've supposedly called you them) shows you fit the discription of the word liar. I call things how they are, unlike you who keeps trying to twist things, and you'll probably come back in a moment and try to twist comments make in this section, pathetic.
Yet again, I DO NOT THINK SCEPTRE AND YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON! Repeat these words until it drills into your head, as I've explained previously, why I thought that was a comment by you at first. (IE- It was unsigned, and you were using an IP just a few comments above). - DeathrockerComment 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continued attacks and violation of his ban by Deathrocker:
Nice try at "twisting" words again, Leyasu. You continue to personally attack me by A) Claiming I'm personally attacking you B) Twisting my words into your own little perversion.
Now making personal attacks in the sense of attempting to deframe my character and the quotes of him both attacking myself, and violating his ban.
Calling you a liar when you have clearly tried to distort words I have said and in some cases, totally made them up (and you can't even show where I've supposedly called you them) shows you fit the discription of the word liar. I call things how they are, unlike you who keeps trying to twist things, and you'll probably come back in a moment and try to twist comments make in this section, pathetic.
Deathrocker here claims that by directly quoting him, ive 'totally made them up ', and also personally attacks me, calling me a liar for quoting him. He also calls me pathetic for the same reason.
Yet again, I DO NOT THINK SCEPTRE AND YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON! Repeat these words until it drills into your head, as I've explained previously, why I thought that was a comment by you at first. (IE- It was unsigned, and you were using an IP just a few comments above).
Here Deathrocker assumes a threatening tone because i wont stop quoting him either on the ANI board or on my Evidence Page.
This behaviour doesnt seem to of ceased, and someone needs to block his openly confessed sock puppet. Ley Shade 01:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you persist with your personal attacks and defemation of character, claiming I'm "personally attacking" you with every comment, is it any suprise that you are already Arbcom parole?
"Deathrocker here claims that by directly quoting him, ive 'totally made them up"
You knew exactly what I was referring to.
In the last week you've claimed I've said "I dislike Gothic metal", and that I've called you a "cunt, twat, bitch, etc", when you can't even quote them, these are just two examples of what I mean when I say you "totally made them up".
Persistant deframing of my character by Deathrocker:
In the last week you've claimed I've said "I dislike Gothic metal", and that I've called you a "cunt, twat, bitch, etc", when you can't even quote them, these are just two examples of what I mean when I say you "totally made them up".
Again, all these claims have diffs, supplied openly on this evidence page.
Perhaps the user Deathrocker would like to use his sockpuppet to make comment on his Arbcom case, instead of personally attacking people on ANI. Ley Shade 02:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your little shrine or "Temple of Deathrocker" is incorrect on basic facts.
Firstly there are no "diffs" showing where I said I "dislike gothic metal" or called you a "cunt, twat, bitch".. infact I have only ever said that I like some Gothic metal bands.
Tawker and Rory69 are NOT admins, check their pages. If you are going to stick your nose in where it has no business atleast get the facts straight. Keep on with your pathetic little shrine kiddo, it doesn't make you seem creepy at all... half of the stuff you are harping on about in it you have little/no idea about in the first place. - DeathrockerComment 04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More personal attacks:
Your little shrine or "Temple of Deathrocker" is incorrect on basic facts.
Personal attack yet again, regarding the Evidence Page.
Firstly there are no "diffs" showing where I said I "dislike gothic metal" or called you a "cunt, twat, bitch".. infact I have only ever said that I like some Gothic metal bands.
Deathrocker claims there are no diffs for things on the evidence page, when they are clearly provided.
Tawker and Rory69 are NOT admins, check their pages. If you are going to stick your nose in where it has no business atleast get the facts straight. Keep on with your pathetic little shrine kiddo, it doesn't make you seem creepy at all... half of the stuff you are harping on about in it you have little/no idea about in the first place.
Personally attacking Tawker and Rory69. Now telling myself that i have no place in commenting in the arbcom case or articles im heavily involved with. Also again attacking the Evidence Page. Personally attacking me using a sockpuppet to call me a 'Kid', and telling me 'you have little/no idea' about subjects im involved in.
This user seems highly insistant on attacking me, rather than defending themself on the ArbCom case. Ley Shade 06:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeeeeeeeah, totally personally attacking Tawker and Rory096 by saying they're not admins (which their pages show... ask them, they aren't admins), whatever, you are past help. I'm working on a reply to your shrine to me, by the way. - DeathrockerComment 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deathrocker doesnt seem to realise he is on a 1 month block for a reason, personal attacks being one of them:
Yeeeeeeeeah, totally personally attacking Tawker and Rory096 by saying they're not admins (which their pages show... ask them, they aren't admins), whatever, you are past help. I'm working on a reply to your shrine to me, by the way. - DeathrockerComment 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deathrocker again infers im 'past help' in the same vein as his attacks that im 'psychotic', an 'idiot', a 'bitch' and 'know nothing'.
Perhaps the user would like to rethink their actions if they wish to be unblocked. Ley Shade 08:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deathrocker, I already have a girlfriend! Sceptre(Talk) 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put this argument somewhere else. We don't want your petty name-calling, persistent personal attacks, presumption of bad faith and trading of accusations, threats and arguments on AN/I. This discussion does not belong here. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Human needs at least one neutral admin to step in and ensure accordance with policy. Too many editors are attempting to edit war their way thru a very tricky minefield of POV, and the article is suffering.
I'm not saying people w opinions arn't welcome, but thats not what this situation needs. What we could really use are some cool heads to remind us of policy.
Sam, it's pretty clear that you're trying to interject your specific religious POV into multiple parts of the article, including the lead-in. What this has to do with WP:ANI is lost on me. --Cyde Weys 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Cyde; up to your normal tricks again, I see. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with both. Sam's use of the NPOV tag is specious, and is now past the threshold of vandalism. Additionally, Sam lost any semblence of a preseumption of NPOV he may may ever have had, and any need to apply WP:AGF to his edits or proposals when he commented, "In sum, teach the controversy, rather than telling mankind "your a dirty ape; get used to it."" Jim62sch 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never have read the page before, and as neutral reader with a biology backgroud, the inclusions of Sam Spade are strong POV, inaccurate, and do not improve the article. KimvdLinde 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said neutral admin, not anyone with an outstanding gripe against me. Sam Spade 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KimvdLinde isn't an admin. See [27]Jim62sch 12:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to believe that any human being could possibly edit war over human, this is one of the stupidest edt wars I've ever seen, cheers--152.163.100.65 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Northmeister has been making reverts on my reverts of other edits for the sole reason of trying to get me not to make reverts on his articles. He keeps on trying to promote the American System (economics) article by putting it into articles (a system advocated by Larochites). He tried to link it to the Pat Buchanan article and I reverted it out. The user then has gone to article in which I contribute to revert my reverts.
And when someone reverts it he claims "vandalism", "trolling", or "stalking".
Another poster, User:Will Beback asked him to stop in his talk page and he replied by telling the poster "you can go to hell" [39]. I asked him to "remember to be civil" and he replied in a similar fashion telling me to "go to hell". [40]--Jersey Devil 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Northmeister for forty-eight hours for incivility and disruption. Tom HarrisonTalk 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Northmeister (talk·contribs) thinks my block is unfair and that I am biased against him. I invite others to review my block and lift it if they think it's unwarranted. Tom HarrisonTalk 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get a fair chance to state my case and was blocked quickly that is why I protest. User Jersey Devil now uses this to smear me when he can, I consider this harassment. He also continues to call my edits "LaRouche" when they are not. Here is my response for the record: --->Jersey Devil did not like the fact that I deleted what I considered harmful commentary on the Gatekeeper deletion vote page (AfD). SEE HERE. So he responded by going to my articles at Wealth of Nations, and Dirigisme among others and reverting (REVENGE REVERTS he calls them) them without commentary on the talk page. I responded by looking into his edit history. I saw that he was engaged in the same thing at other pages. So I took a stand on something I knew about to stop this - Democracy Now! (I am a progressive Democrat afterall). I did this to give User:Radical Mallard a chance to respond to his reverts without discussion. We came to an agreement that it was not helpful to revert others material without discussing it (unless it is an anonymous user or obvious vandalism) and he apologized for his conduct. Then a few days later he again reverted Dirigisme without discussion (while a discussion was in process with another user Will Beback). I took offense first, because he broke our cordial agreement to not revert without first discussing why and second because after I reverted back he reverted again, until I could revert no more (each time he did not list a reason on the talk page). He continues as above to insinuate I am a LaRouche supporter when I am not. This is the same thing Will Beback has done to me since I arrived over disputes at the American System page. I have bent over backwards for them with citations and references and they continue to call me this name. I even wrote a brief about myself to indicate a little about me and where I am from and sent Wikimedia my real name to be on record. That is a little background to balance the above statement. PS. My Buchanan edit was actually accepted by Will Beback after he found out it was well founded himself by the way. --Northmeister 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Northmeister is a newcomer, unfamiliar with Wikipolitics, and has something of a temper. That being said, it is apparent to me that Jersey Devil and Will Beback were deliberately goading him, violating the spirit and the letter of WP:BITE. Will Beback in particular should be admonished, or possibly blocked, for violation of WP:NPA in calling Northmeister a "LaRouche supporter." Will knows very well that Northmeister is not a LaRouche supporter, but continues to taunt him with the term as an epithet (see [41]) and as an implicit threat: Northmeister is aware of the sanctions which may be applied to "LaRouche supporters." As far as I know, I am the only LaRouche supporter left at Wikipedia, since Cognition has apparently left. --HK 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, HK, but your comments about who is and is not a LaRouche supporter are not definitive. Some of user:Northmeister's first edits were to re-instate text that you'd written and which had been deleted long ago.[42][43][44][45] Identifying someone's political biases is not an attack. On the other hand, writing that "THEY ARE TROLLS AND STALKERS" over and over may qualify.[46]. LaRouche editors are not banned from editing here, but LaRouche theories and resources have been deemed to be unreliable, and the ArbCom has concluded that they should not be included in articles, except those about him. Northmeister has engaged in edit warring over the inclusion of LaRouche concepts in unrelated articles, which may lead to a ban, according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche. -Will Beback 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will, your modus operandi when engaged in edit warring is simply to identify anything you don't like as a "LaRouche concept," even if it originated a century or more before LaRouche was born [47]. This tactic is dishonest enough when you use it against me, a self-acknowledged LaRouche supporter; it is downright reprehensible when you use it to bite a newcomer who is trying to edit in good faith. --HK 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask for someone else to review the User:SPUI situation. For his/her latest personal attacks/vandalism, I've blocked him/her for a week, but I am not sure if the block should have been longer. (I don't think it should have been shorter.) --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page protection seems pretty needless, no comment on the block though. Protecting the talk page of frequent editors is pretty annoying, so should only be done in cases of genuine vandalism and personal attacks, which this was not. Christopher Parham(talk) 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The implied invitation to a wheel war is, however, vandalistic, I believe. And his responses to Rschen7754 are personal attacks. I am asking for a review of the situation as a request from myself; I am not implying that SPUI is entitled to appellate rights, and I think it would be bad precedent to allow a blocked user to keep putting {{unblock}} back on as many times as he wishes until an admin unblocks him. He got his chance to proffer good reason to be unblocked. He proffered non-reasons and refused to apologize. That's not good enough in my book. --Nlu (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the three edits since you blocked him there have been no personal attacks that I can see. The addition of {{unblock}} is annoying, I suppose, but the worst that happens is that an administrator takes a look at the situation and feels the block was unfair (again I haven't looked). It's certainly not a problem severe enough to warrant the disruption caused by protecting his talk page. Christopher Parham(talk) 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at the actual issue, I'd classify Rschen's posts on SPUI's talk as fairly rude as well. SPUI's edits were decidedly not vandalism, and the use of both rollback and template anti-vandal responses were quite needless. No dispute with the length of the block, though. Christopher Parham(talk) 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand your point on protecting his talk page being disruptive, though. Disruptive of what? If he's properly blocked (an issue that I asked for review on), he's not going to be editing articles, and there is no real reason for him to be communicating with anyone anyway. --Nlu (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I've unblocked SPUI, perhaps after an incomplete review of the issues and edits involved here. After now having read the above, I'm not certain I would have unblocked him. I am not going to reblock him, but am also not going to again unblock him if he continues to be disruptive. I am hopeful he can edit productively (because if he doesn't, I look like a jackass). JDoorjamTalk 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes, that User:User:SPUI is a swell chap, that's what I've been trying to say.... :: ahem :: JDoorjamTalk 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC) (redfaced)[reply]
Disruptive of the normal functioning of Wikipedia, obviously... usually when I have a question to ask another editor about an edit he made I post to his talk page. Given that SPUI has 50000+ edits, I imagine that over a weeks time a few people might have questions for him over the course of a week. I don't see what it would help to prevent them from asking. This is aside from the general philosophy that without a good reason to protect, which there certainly was not, protection is an evil. Christopher Parham(talk) 08:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you think this is not disruptive? --Nlu (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not especially. Frankly, I think Tawker's being a bit silly about it and is edit warring to no purpose. Christopher Parham(talk) 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can my actions be classified as rude? Adding "profit" to the WP:CASH page here and here is vandalism, and I responded with the correct templates. (WP:CASH has nothing to do with money). And then when I noted this at the MedCabal page he annotated it with {{fact}} which is for use in the article space and when something is uncertain. Especially considering that I am an admin but did not block SPUI myself, I feel that I took the right actions here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about an obvious joke on a project page. It was clearly not intended to damage the project, which is the basic definition of vandalism. "You are potentially offending people...in the wider readership?" Do you really think a lot of readers are checking out the California Highways Wikiproject? In general, I think you were pretty damn rude, yeah. The fact that you're involved in a dispute with him is all the more reason for you to maintain a cooler head about things. Christopher Parham(talk) 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rschen (particularly since the templates used are standard templates. It should be further noted that since then, SPUI has resorted to sockpuppetry to try to get unblocked. See [48]. Still think that unprotecting the talk page does any good? --Nlu (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think SPUI is an annoying git, too. But what he did in this case is not worth a block, and the use of {{test}} templates to "warn" him was exceedingly inappropriate. There is also nothing wrong with him posting a template asking other admins to review the case. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you think SPUI is an annoying git. But adding "profit" to WP:CASH is a harmless joke and not blockworthy. Please don't use anti-vandalism templates on the talk pages of good users; in my opinion it is actually more rude than SPUI's retort to it. Rschen7754 was, as he points out, right not to block SPUI himself but I don't feel any block is warranted at all. Haukur 10:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to 'joke' in this manner. Think: if this edit was made by an anon, none of you would have any hesitation in reverting and warning, and I'm not sure what it is that makes this acceptable here. This wasn't just a one-off joke, SPUI made the same edit again once he was reverted. I do not see how this was not disruptive, especially the second time. Raven4x4x 11:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to use the vandalism templates. They are plainly a shortcut (not the only method) to warn new users. I'm sure an experienced user deserves a fuller explanation. Sam Korn(smoddy) 12:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People of zee world... relax. I see humor on a project page being considered vandalism, and a request that certain accusations be properly sourced are both being considered simple vandalism. I see a your mom joke being considered a personal attack. I see pedantic "test 1-5" templates being issued to one of our top contributors. I see uptight people. Everybody just chill the fuck out, please. — Mar. 19, '06 [17:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>
What the freakish one said. I wonder, do the blockers even get the joke? Repeating it was dumb, but a week for a dumb joke? Come on. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the alleged joke. It's the attitude after the unacceptable nature of the edit had been pointed out to him/her. Think about it; if it's anyone else, would there be any hesitation to block?
It should be further be noted that freakofnature then unblocked SPUI's sockpuppet User:Sockenpuppe. At the risk of continuing a wheel war that SPUI called for (again, another unacceptable behavior), I reblocked that sockpuppet. Again, anyone else maintaining a sockpuppet and using it like that (and with such an unacceptable user name, no less) would be blocked automatically. Why are we maintaining a double standard for SPUI? --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, that was a very funny joke. So funny I forgot to laugh out loud. Seriously it's not funny, especially in the middle of this edit war that SPUI has initiated by refusing to build a consensus. And I love how Freakofnature unblocked this sock of SPUI to let him come talk with us all, because that's what policy says should happen. I get blocked for 2 days with no contact back from ANYONE and he gets to have a sock come talk. Talk about a double standard. Stop playing favorites. SPUI is vandalizing pages pure and simple now since he refuses to talk about anything.JohnnyBGood 18:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And then SPUI's sock turns me in for "3RR" where I was fixing SPUI's vandalism of the med cabal page. Seriously there's favoritism going on here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you wonder why I reverted that... a) you're editing someone else's comments, which is a big no-no, and b) you can just look up at User:Nlu there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked nicely on User talk:Redflea and User talk:67.49.170.87, but they still keep reverting to POV pushing versions attacking Dr. Conklin personally. Please warn, and block both accounts (should be the same person). --JereKrischel 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I'm a sockpuppet because someone on campus got into a fight with a sysop. I'm tired of the personal attacks, I'm tired of the abuse of sysop powers. Ban my user account indefinitely immediately. Also, ban the entire IP range of the University, considering that pretty much everyone there is my meat puppet. The IPs are 130.126.X.X and 128.174.X.X. -- Jbamb 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has proposed banning or even blocking you. Sock puppets accounts may be blocked if they are used for edit warring, as appears to have been the case with user:Alpha269. The edit warring was over inclusion of John Bambanek on lists of prominent people, and over the deletion of the biography itself. Your failure to curb the inappropriate promotion of yourself, whether by you or a fan of yours, does not reflect well on you but it is not a bannable offense. -Will Beback 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But block evasion warrants further blocking, and User:Jbamb exhibited the same incivility and disruptive behavior throughout. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stbalbach has put together a page linking a number of IPs to poor editing behavior, User:Stbalbach/anontexan. Included on that list is one IP strongly associated with Shran/CantStandYa, and there is some overlapping editing of obscure articles. Due to those factors I assumed they were the same person but I have come to realize that I was wrong. I had combined two cases which should be treated separately. While compiling that case I came across numerous transgresions in this re-separated case, which I think it merits independent treatment.
Perhaps User:Stbalbach can list the diffs, but I've seen instances of 3RR violations, several cases of fraudulently changing the IP of his signature, and POV disputes and edit warring with Jimbo Wales [50][51] and many other editors. There are complaints on his IP pages to which he's never responded. He refuses to get a username so I don't know the best way to proceed. -Will Beback 19:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here are some examples:
3RR:The use of multiple anon IP's to get around the 3RR rule can be seen on March 10th of Movement to impeach George W Bush. It's difficult to diff them all here but a scan of the history page linked above shows it clearly from 70.84.56.172 and 66.98.130.204 on March 10th.
Changing IP on sig: This user manually changed or deleted the IP number showing up in his sig on talk pages (note: the user claims it was being done "automatically" by his security software, but "with a slight delay" after posting). Here is an example diff of deleting the IP. example diff of changing the IP. There are many other examples on other pages as well.
Refusing to talk on talk pages. When confronted with issues surrounding the use of anon IPs, and thus breach of good faith in edits, the user responded to the charge of lack of good faith as a personal insult and an reason to enter into edit warring:
"If you edit unacceptably to me, I will either revert or modify. If not, I won't. I've talked here in good faith and you answer with insults. Come what may, I will not repond to you again - unless and until you apologize." [52]
How about you and your cohorts stop reverting and sprotecting after every edit I make and instead dialog on the repsective talk pages? Except for a burst of pique the other day when you guys were lying about me and calling me shran, the content of my edits have been valid. Stop being such wiki-snobs and open your minds. anon... —This unsigned comment was added by 66.98.130.204 (talk • contribs) .
It is very difficult to "dialog" with someone who has no identity, or who alters his identity, who refuses to discuss, and who doesn't have a user talk page. Using multiple IPs does not grant you a waiver from our policies, including 3RR and NPOV. Regarding the Shran mixup, that was an honest mistake for which I have apologized. Now please make sure that you are familiar with our policies and guidelines. Further violations may result in range blocks or sprotects. -Will Beback 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Anon Texan certainly has been disruptive, is generally (but not completely) unwilling to engage on talk pages, and is unwilling to engage in consensus forming. He blanked a section of Killian documents for being "POV crap" and posted this on the talk page. " The section which was deleted has no citations and is nothing but original research -and it's POV too. Either clean it up or it's going to keep getting deleted. That section is nothing but uncited speculative conjecture. " The fact is I agree with him on the substance of the section, except that I proposed a rewrite in talk, waited for comments and consensus, and replaced the poor section with something better. The fact that he disagrees with a consensus that had been established on a contentious article does not give him carte blanche to disrespect the work of many before him by refusing to engage in even a token discussion and he is certainly more interested in edit warring than in working toward consensus.
However, I must also point out that as a result of antagonizing some editors, edits by the Anon Texan are being reverted even when they are reasonable. For example, Jonathunder (talk·contribs) reverted this edit even though it was a minor grammatical point that probably made a small improvement. (Unfortunately, the Texan had previously baited Jonathunder on his user sandbox here). On Pat Tillman, the Texan changed the comments of Tillman's brother at his memorial service from he's fucking dead to he's f--ing dead on the basis of published accounts here and here. He was reverted on the grounds that wikipedia is uncensored, and then the page was sprotected. The thing is, I checked Lexis/Nexis and can find no source that quotes Rich Tillman as using the actual word fucking at his brother's memorial service. Maybe all the news sources bowdlerized the quote, and maybe Rich Tillman bowdlerized himself. The point is a minor quibble but the Texan is technically correct in this case.
It seems that the Texan is more interested in provoking people than being productive, but do we really want to adopt a policy of reverting all edits on sight? Thatcher131 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response to this editor was initially colored by the mistaken belief that it was Shran. Except for specific cases we should not revert any user's works on sight, without proper review. Howeverit is a fact that annoying, abusive editors get less assumption of good faith than average users. I can't speak for user:Jonathunder, but I do notice that his reverts occured before we cleared up the Shran/Texan confusion, so he may have been under the same mistaken belief as me. While we should not bite newcomers, the Texan is no newcomer. Other than range blocks or sprotecting articles I don't see a way of minimizing the disruption of an editor who won't confer with colleagues -Will Beback 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help needed: legal threats / harassment
I'm being harassed, and personal attacks and legal threats have been directed at me. Right now I don't have the patience nor the time to adress this issue so I request assistance. Here is the issue: in the last few months, we've had numerous spammers add two external links to dozens of articles related to Nigeria. These links, inserted under the guise of providing 'good images' have loads of commercial content, and as such have been removed by various editors. See en:Talk:Lagos#How can you_have a Place without Picture for some discussion of the content of the links.
The spammers (some of the accounts/IP's are listed below) have been warned several times by various editors but still kept adding the links. Therefore, I have requested addition to the side-wide spam blacklist. One editor followed me there to mess with the request, adding some personal remarks. Other not so nice things include an earlier conversation with a lot of bad language and the creation of an impostor account, Mark Dingemanse. (talk·contribs) (now blocked indefinitely). The newest chapter is a legal threat; here's the diff (on Meta), with the charming edit summary "going to court".
I'm putting this together now because I feel this might grow into something more nasty if it isn't stopped soon. I think the spamming, the attacks and especially the legal threats might warrant a fairly long block, but on the other hand it just might be possible to resolve the issue using some form of mediation (see summary of the arguments below). If someone of you has the angelic, JackyR-like patience to guide the editors, there is a small chance that something good comes from it. But I simply don't have the time for this anymore, so I'm leaving it to others now. In fact, yesterday I have indicated on Talk:Nigeria and on the talk pages of the spammer(s) that I'm withdrawing myself for a while to avoid putting more oil on the flames; however, the legal threat came today, so it looks like they want to stir up the fire instead.
For those who want to know, the argument of the editors inserting the links boils down to the following: (1) good images on Nigeria-related articles are a Good Thing; (2) the nigeriaplanet.proboard43 site is a good source for images. Other editors of Nigeria-related articles fully agree with the first point, but consider the second point to be in the wrong because the added site, aside from having a few pictures, is full of commercial links. The above editor has been told to upload good pictures to Commons instead of adding commercial links; he has even been offered assistance (by User:JackyR; see User talk:Nigeriamajor), but has not responded to any such friendly offers.
Thanks for helping out. — mark✎ 20:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is a no-brainer, block indefinitely for spamming and legal threats. dab(ᛏ) 21:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick action, Dieter. Do you think it would be a good idea to block the anon IP from which the threat came? That's 69.195.84.54(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log), mentioned above. (It's quite clear that all accounts and IP's come from the same narrow range, so I suspect it's just one person).
To others: someone who is admin on Meta might want to block them there, too. — mark✎ 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs seem to belong to a cable ISP (rogers.com), so it's probably unwise to permablock them. But unless and until our fellow admins disagree, I suppose you can consider this one community-banned, roll back his edits and slap short blocks on his IPs. dab(ᛏ) 08:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I only blocked the anon on meta for one week for this very reason :). 09:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I want to formally complain on User Acuman and User Diyako
Please mointor their behaviour. Connect the dots. No assumtions. They systematically change all definitions with negative connotations to Iran. Such as statments equated with Kurds disliking Iran, Iran being named Iran due to Nazism, the non-existantce of the Iranian race, changin the traditional definitions of things linked to Iran. User:Diyako knows that the term Farsi is offensive to some but insistes on using it. See his discussion and that of other users. He is instigating problems. I beleive I was also blocked unfairly dueto user:Acumans rhetoric. I merely asked him to keep the peace and reform and I get blocked for personal attacks! 69.196.139.250 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who denys the word farsi is not neutral SEE:
The Aucaman situation has been dealt with for the time being. Diyako has been warned not to use label editors Farsi (as it could be interprited as an insult). As for the other claims, they seem to simply be content disputes (User:69.196.139.250 has been accusing editors of using 'fake sources'). --InShaneee 02:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response would be to ask him whether he would voluntarily submit to a username change to drop the "wikipedia.org" part from his name. My guess is that he assumed it was part of the username, like johnsmith@yahoo.com, etc. I wouldn't be too worried, though. Ral315 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but suspending assumptions of good faith a second, does that hold up until the point where he harasses some newbie who thinks they're talking to an administrator because of the words "wikipedia.org" in his name? I'm surprised they're not rushing to block that name (while fairly giving him a chance to choose another one, it's likely he just didn't know any better). ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire! 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's likely he didn't know any better, and unless we have a reason to believe he is abusing the username, there's no reason to rush to a block. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa now, that's not what I meant. What I meant was for someone to get in touch with him, explain whats wrong with his username, then let him pick a new username and let us know when he's ready for the old one to be deleted. Just cause I'm assuming he didn't know any better doesn't mean that I think his username should stay. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire! 08:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is what I tried to say. Accounts cannot be deleted, but they can be renamed. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I submitted a RFCU on the 17th about user Alpha269 and Jbamb. Alpha was blocked and the n Jbamb came to WP:AN to fight his case. Circumstances on why a checkuser was asked for these two users, and the results o fthe checkuser are available here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#Jbamb_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_Alpha269_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29). The results were 90% likely that they were the same user. I am requesting that an admin look into this as Jbamb/Alpha269 were evading blocks, and the checkuser confirms to a degree that they are the same person. Mike(TC) 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where else to put this, but I seem to be a magnet for a series of attacks on the entry pages and discussion pages Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, National Lawyers Guild, National Student Association, and others. This involves a series of names for editors including user:nobs01 who was banned for a year for personal attacks, and then user:ColonelS, who edited pages attacking me [64], and now User:OC5 who has only edited article attacking me or PRA. [65]. At one point it appeared that Nobs01 briefly returned as user:Antimetro[66]. Some of these users appear to sign in for a week or two and then vanish. I have no idea if this is one editor with multiple sockpuppets, or a series of editors who just want to attack me. One hates to be too suspicious, but this is getting tiresome. This is not about content. Any help or investigation would be gratefully accepted. I very much want to leave a public record of this happening someplace on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Cberlet 04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been constantly vandalzing the Joseph Sobran article. He has been removing factual information and replacing with POV. He has violated the 3RR rule on numerous occasions. You can see that he has a history of bad behavior on this page. In the past he has called other editors vile names. It is suggested that he be banned from Wikipedia for at least 1 month. - User:Rogerman
The term "vandalism" is being used by User:Rogerman in a manner that is not standard on Wikipedia. Rogerman and DJac75 are involved (as I am) in a content dispute, which I think most here would agree is substantively different than "vandalism." Dick Clark 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70.225.171.96 defamatory remarks
Developers and admins, please remove the remarks from this address under Intel Core Architecture;
This is a shared IP and open wireless access point with no WEP or WPA, someone must have left some unsavory remarks under this IP, please remove these.
Thanks
revenge of the Rajputs' sock army
We are getting a ridiculous amount of sockpuppetry at Rajput, evidently orchestrated by banned user(s) Shivraj Singh (talk·contribs) & DPSingh (talk·contribs) (their being almost pathological sock artists was already part of the arbcom finding, so this was all really predictable). Can somebody please permaban
and any other accounts as they join the fray? These are banned users' socks. The only reason I am not banning them myself is that I was involved in the arbcom case. Thank you. dab(ᛏ) 10:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across the new user, User:Fukyaself, who's doing nothing but vandalism. As a new admin, I haven't blocked anyone yet for an inappropriate username, but think the policy applies here? What's the procedure for such cases? Do we just put Template:UsernameBlock on their talk page and block them (indefinite)? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been blocked. And yes, that's what you do. -Splashtalk 16:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linkspamremover (talk·contribs) seems to be a bot of some sort; however, I cannot find information about it anywhere (there's nothing on the user and user talk pages, nothing links to the user page, and I find nothing on the lists of bots I've looked at). I'm not blocking because I'm not sure it's a bot; I would like for someone more experienced with bots to take a look and confirm if it's a bot or not. --cesarb 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with bots, but from a quick scan of the contributions, the user (bot?) isn't making rapid edits. Have you tried asking the user/bot? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kojco Bot blocked
This bot is deleting valid interwiki links. I am blocking it until its owner provides an explanation what it is doing. I have left a message on the owner's User page. (PS -- if he provides a reasonable explanation, I give permission to any admin to reverse my block.) -- llywrch 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, articles are usually debated for "five days or so" before final action is taken. This debate lasted exactly three hours, culminating (after 5 votes) in a speedy keep by Sean Black. Under the heading of "AfD etiquette," participants are advised that "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy." SlimVirgin, the primary author, not only failed to declare her interest in the discussion, she also reverted the article three times, deleting the AfD template from the article in question, during the three hour time period. In addition, AfD etiquette recommends that participants should "Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, civility, and assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment." In her comments on the AfD page, SlimVirgin characterizes the AfD as "vandalism" and the initiator, a new user named User:IAMthatIAM, as "a LaRouche activist with a new account trying to cause trouble." She then blocked IAMthatIAM when he restored the deleted template (see [67].) It appears to me that multiple policies have been violated here. --HK 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent some time looking into this. Here are my views on your various complaints:
Speedy keeps happen when well-sourced, notable articles are put up for deletion for no good reason. That's a judgement call of the closing admin, and it was the right one here.
SlimVirgin didn't vote, so declaring herself the an author wasn't really a big deal. In any case, it's less important than the next point.
I do wish SlimVirgin had been a bit more civil. However, it is clear that User:IAMthatIAM was an account newly created by a knowledgable user (perhaps previously anonymous) for the express purpose of arguing about issues related to Lyndon LaRouche.
Likewise, SlimVirgin as an involved writer of the article ought to have gotten help dealing with this, rather than performing the disruption block herself.
However, nothing that was done was unreasonable, so the case is closed as far as I'm concerned. -- SCZenz 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same LaRouche supporter has turned up with a new account, User:IAMwhatsIAM, and renominated Jeremiah Duggan for deletion. I reverted the edits and blocked the account for 24 hours for vandalism in the first instance, but Fred Bauder has advised that the account may be blockable under the arbitration rulings against LaRouche editors, so I'm going to discuss with him how best to proceed. SlimVirgin(talk) 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, socks of this nature may be treated as socks of Herschelkrustofsky and blocked indefinitely upon recognition and anything they do reverted. In such instances Herschelkrustofsky may also be briefly banned, but that is not mandatory action. Herschelkrustofsky is only permitted to edit under one account. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreasonable accusations and deletion of talk page entries by User:Seraphim XI
On article FreemasonryUser:SeraphimXI has now twice removed comments by me along with the accusations that they are personal attacks. The substance of the comment was that the inference that User:SeraphimXI has contributed nothing of substance during his/ her time participating in the article. I would suggest this is unreasonable.
This strikes me as, at the very least, vandalism as it is removing reasonable comment from the talk page in an attempt to bolster the editors own position and minimise evidence of disatisfaction with her conduct. Diven the inflammatory nature of the edit summary there is clearly an effort to antagnonise me into reinstating my comments again however I choose not to be drawn into an edit conflict.
This antagnoistic approach follows an attempt by myself to approach a collaboration in Jahbulon which has been met with nothing but hostility by User:SeraphimXI and I believe that this attempt to escalate the situation is related.ALR 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)I have notified SeraphimXI of this complaint at: [[72]] noting that I did neglect to sign the comment.[reply]
A response highlighting the Seraphims hostility to me is at: [[74]]ALR 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While perhaps not quite rising to the level of personal attack, your comment on that talk page was at the very least a touch snippy, and not likely to help anyone return to calm editing. It was not helpful. You might want to examine your motivations for leaving it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to look at the situation but would welcome a pointer as to which comment you mean? The first which has been twice removed was merely an offhand comment which has been misconstrued. The second was an attempt to mitigate the situation, although I appreciate that it perhaps does not take into account transatlantic differences in sensitivity levels and response to different types of mitigation strategies. The final one is evidence and my motivations are no more than recording the event.ALR 07:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look over the situation, in hindsight I appreciate that I allowed my frustrations at lack of progress on improving the article to come out in a flippant comment.ALR 09:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. What I was removing as a personal attack was " So I look forward to you actually making a substantive contribution to the article then? It's about time.ALR 18:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)". The "It's about time." shows that the statement was made with sufficient venom to be considered a personal attack. Seraphim 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that printed words carry no venom whatsoever I am saddened that you choose to interpret that as a personal attack. I have already noted that I perhaps need to be more aware of the differences in sense of humour between myself as a Scot and you as an American. I type sardonic flippancy, you see venom; although your perception of my motivation does itself illustrate some of the issues.ALR 16:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If ALR had recognised that this was an inappropriate comment that could be (in my opinion was meant to be) an albeit mild personal insult, and had apologised, I would feel that he had a point. He didn't apologise, so I think this is a needless complaint. Please also see the goading on Seraphim's page, kicking her while she's down. It's rather concerted and very ugly. JASpencer 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give everyone who reads this another reminder. We currently have 91 semi'd articles, and many of them have been protected for very much longer than is necessary to get rid of your average vandal. Please remember to reverse protections quickly. I know there are those who would have everything semi-protected permanently, but while we're still a wiki and while WP:SEMI urges it's use in limited circumstances, please remember to do the other end of the janitorial work too. Thanks. -Splashtalk 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That probably misses the majority of forgotten semi-protected pages because those don't even have the {{sprotect}} tag on them. --Cyde Weys 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user is creating a few problems on Wikipedia for this short celebration of Norouz:
1- He started by creating a new article from a revert with no real source to suggest the festival is any different [75].
- This created much problems with the page now being protected (and half broken talk links to another page and so on)
2- He then started abusive comments to push his POV e.g. "Calling Kurds as well as their culture and tradition to be Iranian is another insult made by Iranian and many other people." [76]
b- Kurds are atleast linguistically if not ethno-culturally Iranian (see Iranian people), as seen here and also here too.
To show that this user is not new to such 'anti-Iranian' behaviour see his (infact second) warning here by an admin, regarding calling Iranians 'farsi', again, after being warned that this could be offensive.
3- Even though it is obvious that there are some Kurds living in Iran (See Kurdistan Province (Iran)), where Norouz is public holiday (New year festival), and Persian is the official language of the country, user still pushes POV by saying: "The word Norouz has no meaning for Kurds" here, after many contributers are trying to compromise at Talk:Newroz#Compromise.3F.
4- If all this was not enough, he then nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norouz for deletion! a current event article which was fully cited and not disputed what so ever, just to push his POV even more and waste more time.
Conclusion: This user has made all these problems just so the Norouz articles would be left with disputes and other problems, wasting many users time who could be actually enjoying this festival instead of trying to protect the article. I invite all neutral admins and users to comment on this matter. Further evidence can be submitted if required. --Kash 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear administrators, please glance through our discussions in Norouz and Newroz talk page. I always tried to offer academic evidences for my discussions from Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Department of Ancient Studies at Univ London. However User:Dyiako says: Look sina, Maybe you are young, I do not like playing and wasting my time Duscussing with you has bo result and wasting time. This is why I prefer to discuss the matter with others than you.. While we were discussig the pages, he nominated the pages for deletion without saying anything to us. He repeatedly made claims like "the boggus norouz please respect the Kurdish world" and also Norouz in the case of Kurds is boggus, and uncorrect, and to the Kurdish culture an insult with no source. Up to now he did not provide any academic sources for his claims. Please notice that the word is indeed in use in KURDISH media and also Persian, Tajik, Lor, Mazani, Gilak, Azeri ones. I have already provided sources for that. But it seems Diyako just do not want to accept the fact. I suggested to use a title like "Norouz celebrations among Kurds (Newroz)" but he keeps deleting it! No other editors agreed with him at the end of our discussions yesterday. --Sina Kardar10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit of a coincidence to me. I guess when he starts posting on ElectricRay's talk page, we'll know for sure....--JW1805(Talk) 02:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palmetto State (talk·contribs): This edit at the little noticed article Coving, which was created by Zep, and edited by several sockpuppets. In his second edit, he reverted my revert of all the changes from the sockpuppets. Doesn't seem like something a brand new user would do. --JW1805(Talk) 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's him. Good, solid, factual edits, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... But, you'll revert them, though, won't you? It is policy. It is the rules. Never mind the merits of the situation... He is a banned user, and he must be stopped. ElectricRay 14:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your useful contribution. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure. JW, how come you don't effect these blocks yourself? ElectricRay 17:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JW is not an Admin. Only Admins can administer blocks. --LV(Dark Mark) 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. For a commoner, JW has a very developed sense of justice being seen to be done, and miscreants being brought to book. Very commendable attitutde. Perhaps JW will be an admin one day. ElectricRay 19:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everyone here is a commoner, and yes, JW probably will be an admin someday. As long as he keeps on being productive and level-headed, there will be no reason to oppose. --LV(Dark Mark) 21:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Some commoner than others. Yes, I suppose he might. Hope so. It would be a pity, though, if he were to become so focussed on rooting out Zephram Stark whereever he may be found that JW began destroying perfectly sensible content in the encyclopaedia. Some people might think this was a little unlevel-headed, and counter-productive. ElectricRay 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Ray, I must point out that Zephram has been banned from Wikipedia. He has lost the privilege of contributing. I will rvt any edits I see from him, I don't care if you think they are "sensible" or not. I'm not going out of my way....he is actually pretty easy to spot.--JW1805(Talk) 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the first time I might wonder aloud whether a walk around the block and a breath of fresh air might not do you the world of good. ElectricRay 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble seeing the personal attack there to be honest. There is criticism of your action, sure, but that is quite a different thing, and it seems to me to be fairly stated: "Yet, JW1805 goes out of his way to try to delete it. I don't think Wikipedia benefits from this kind of editor". Harmless enough - one must be allowed to express an opinion, surely. On the other hand, your subsequent edit to the same page in reply, which you neglected to mention, here seems to comply with neither the policy of assuming good faith, nor refraining from personal attacks, making as it does allegations against another member (viz., being a sockpuppet of a banned user, and being a liar) neither of which, as far as I can see, you are in a position to substantiate. Now these are what I would describe as personal attacks. Is not the pot calling the kettle black, therefore? Indeed, is not a personal attack of that sort a blockable offence? Just wondering aloud. ElectricRay 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said "most likely a sockpuppet", which based on my extensive experience with this troll, he most likely is. It is a fact that previous ZS sockpuppets uploaded images and lied about their source. That is not a personal attack. Questing my motives and calling me McCarthyist is. I think you could do us all a "world of good" if you spent more time actually contributing to articles (which you do very seldomly), instead of tirelessly defending the actions of a banned user. --JW1805(Talk) 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems to me it would easy enough for one or the other of you to email brian@silverbushmusic.com and double check the permission. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And as JW is the one in doubt about this, it would be incumbent on JW to send the email. Since it is such a fitting image, perhaps JW might ask "if we don't have permission already, may we have permission now?". ElectricRay 10:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you replied first, you get to do it; you're the one defending the veracity of a proven liar. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell you as soon as I get an answer. No sneaky deleting the pictures before then, now! ElectricRay 21:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't any way for you to prove that you have received an email with permission. How do we know you aren't just another one of Zephram's sockpuppets? The website in question says:
All photographs, diagrams, and repair explanations are from the works in progress;
Any reproduction in any media without permission is strictly forbidden.
So did you email him then? ElectricRay 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zephram claimed on the image page that he received permission to release it under a GFDL license. That's probably just baloney. Like he's done many times before, he swiped if from the webpage and claimed he had permission. Actually, I's surprised he didn't claim to have taken the picture himself, which is what he usually does. --JW1805(Talk) 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what a dilemma. How do you know I'm not just another Zephram Stark sockpuppet? How do you know you're not, indeed? Je pense, donc, je suis. You could get one of the big kids to block me, to be on the safe side. ElectricRay 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser has confirmed that these are Stark sockpuppets, and has identified several others. --JW1805(Talk) 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, to summerize, the following accounts need to be blocked:
No but I was blocked from Wikipedia. What, I'm going to use a sock like you did? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked for violating 3RR because of your incorrect view of vandalism. Please learn what vandalism actually is, and maybe you won't be blocked again. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed with Spectre's view that Rschen7754 committed a 3RR violation, but I didn't unblock Rschen7754 because I didn't think a wheel war was the right thing to do. Now, what you are doing now is clearly a personal attack, and you will be blocked in a couple minutes.
Other admins: please don't block without a very good reason. SPUI's conduct is unacceptable. --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit SPUI shows, it was just the rollback button being used to revert. While it was generally only used for vandalism in the past, it has been used (de facto) by administrators if they need to revert anything. Either by one button or by a few, a revert was performed. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except it was reverting vandalism since {{fact}} is article space and SPUI knows that. But really the block isn't at the heart of the matter; I did my time, justified or not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked SPUI, as I feel the current block was inappropriate. I will not unblock again if someone decides I shouldn't have unblocked. Note that SPUI has been blocked many times during his time here, and usually for a damn good reason; it's a marvel he was able to extract any sympathy at all. SPUI: if you continue to be a dickhead, you will run out of people willing to unblock you. Nlu: I don't think you or Rschen should block SPUI for, at least, a very long time. You are too personally involved; this thread, while hardly a shining moment even for someone held to as low a standard as SPUI, does not qualify as a personal attack and could only be considered one by someone who is truly unable to be objective. Please, take a step back, enjoy a nice cocktail, and relax and go worry about someone else. If SPUI steps over the line, there's a long enough queue of people watching him that you don't need to. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. I've reinstituted the block, and I don't see how I'm "too personally involved," given that prior to yesterday I had no disputes (indeed, contacts) with SPUI at all. That I've experienced SPUI's behavior first hand since then doesn't make me unobjective, I don't think. I'd block anyone with the same behavior the same length. Feel free to bring me up on WP:RfAr if you think what I did is inappropriate. There having been no good reason that I've seen to unblock SPUI, I've reinstituted the block. If you think that there is a good reason to unblock, please explain rather than just assert. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just an additional thought on this: please reflect on this question; if this were an anonymous IP engaging in this behavior (including self-admitted sockpuppetry), would he/she be blocked the same length, if not longer? I think that the honest answer from most admins here would have to be yes. --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He made no personal attacks in this thread. However, you cite personal attacks here as your reason for blocking. How much clearer could it be? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, missed the "additional thought". No, an IP would not be blocked for the same length or longer: I rarely block IPs for more than 24 hours, and often I'll block for less. Secondly, his behaviour in this case (making a joke on CASH, asking to be unblocked, and insisting that non-vandalism edits aren't vandalism) would not see anyone blocked, not even SPUI. As for "self-admitted sockpuppetry", I mean, he called his sockpuppet "Sockenpuppe", and one of the first things the sock did was identify itself as a sock of SPUI. That is hardly the same thing as your common or garden-variety sockpuppet block-evading routine. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no personal attacks here. This is nonsense. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>
In what way is the section heading of this section not a personal attack? --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It implies that I am an admin who got ratified by insane people and that I do not know how to do my job. How would you like that if I implied that about you? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying a content dispute as vandalism, rolling back SPUI's edits because they were critical of your position. I'm concerned about it myself. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>
And you notice that I didn't unblock myself? That I never blocked SPUI? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I noticed that. It's a good sign that you know better than you act. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Un unblocking himself would have been an act. So he knows and acts better. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was referring to the fact that Rschen knew better than to block SPUI, as it was clearly an edit war, not simple vandalism, yet he still rolled it back as such, and issued boilerplate "vandalism" warnings, which is more insulting than what some of us have felt it appropriate to block SPUI a whole week for. — Mar. 21, '06 [07:26] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I would also back Rschen's defense of himself in this case, especially against User:freakofnature who is hardly a model admin. Unblocking admitted socks so they can disrupt other user's edits is hardly appropriate.Gateman1997 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least SPUI claims his "sockpuppet", and doesn't use it for vote-stacking and edit warring, as I've stated several times. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Using a sock to get around a block is not allowed and should not be encoraged or defended. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he used his sock to turn me in for "3RR". If you don't believe me, it's still on the WP:AN/3RR page. He couldn't wait until he was unblocked? This is evading the block. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's still no excuse to use a sockpuppet, which should have been blocked long ago since it had no legitimate purpose. If he wanted to notify JDoorjam, he could use e-mail -- as we instruct people to do when they're blocked as collateral damage. There was no justifiable reason to use a sockpuppet. --Nlu (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What other sockpuppet are you referring to? No other users involved with this debate have any socks except SPUI.Gateman1997 07:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I must say I did not think that SPUI violated his probation (see WP:AER), but upon second reading, I think he violated the term of "no provocative edits." I still believe that his edits yesterday were vandalistic, but if they were not, they were certainly provocative -- and his taunting of Rschen7754 today is certainly provocative. Of course, according to Mark, maybe I'm being too close to this. But I think I can honestly say that I would, in fact, block anyone with this behavior. If I'm too harsh, then that harshness isn't SPUI-specific. --Nlu (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taking things out of context, aren't we? See [79] and [80]; pay attention to SPUI's prior blocks (or, what we call in the criminal justice business, prior convictions). I think, again, I can honestly say that I do block people with the same behavior with the same prior blocks with the same length. --Nlu (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked at it. And it seems that SPUI is the only registered user whom you've blocked on more than one separate occasion. Three times in fact, and each one was reversed as inappropriate. — Mar. 21, '06 [07:23] <freakofnurxture|talk>
If the first block (yesterday) had stuck, we wouldn't need the second block, would we? And if the second block had stuck, we wouldn't need the third block, would we? Accusing me of blocking him too many times is self-contradictory, for someone who unblocked him. If he had remained blocked from yesterday, he wouldn't be around today to provoke Rschen; ergo, the subsequent block (and reblock) would not have been necessary.
In any case, most "registered user blocks" are one-time things, since those tend to be indefinite blocks, and of course you wouldn't need to indefinitely block three times. I've certainly blocked some IPs more than a couple times. And, again, with anyone else, I think with such a long list of misbehaviors, that person would have been blocked indefinitely already. --Nlu (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it have been better to say "provocotive edits as per his probation" as the reason for the block rather than personal attacks? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears someone has reduced his block anyway.Gateman1997 06:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a certain degree of SPUI-baiting going on here, and the whole circle of "provocative edit, over-reaction, more provocative edits" is unfortunate. Is there any chance that we could stop kicking in the guts someone who's known to flare up? The use of {{fact}} was about a three (out of ten) on the dick scale, but using the rollback button was a five. I don't give a rat's arse about de facto, it's bad form if for no other reason than it doesn't give an expository edit summary. (Which I note with some amusement SPUI gets tuned up for by Oleg Alexandrov on his talk.) The topic here is just another in a slight edging upwards of hostility that all parties are to some degree taking part in, but it's not a "personal attack". - brenneman{L} 06:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had an encounter with SPUI prior to yesterday, and yesterday, upon on seeing what I considered inappropriate behavior, I blocked him a week -- the same length I would impose for someone for whom prior 48-hour blocks did nothing to reform the behavior of. How is that "SPUI-baiting" or overreaction? Again, would an anonymous IP which displayed the same pattern of failure to reform not have gotten progressively longer blocks? --Nlu (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BP, I do not feel that anything SPUI has done here rises to the level of requiring an *extremely harsh* one-week ban from editing. There is a heated content dispute, and hackles are raised on both sides. I feel that a 12-hour ban fulfills the apparent need to cool the situation down. I suggest that *no action* be taken with regard to the dispute at this point until a mediator be appointed, or a request for comment filed. FCYTravis 06:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many people have tried to work with him nicely... we get snide comments and reverts with no explaination for our trouble... and it just goes from there. We give a little, and in response he gives nothing but lip. Any ideas about what to do in a situation like that? Gateman1997 06:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User declaring himself to be a Crip...
Now that we've got our little nice discussion out of the way, hopefully... User:Thousandsons has, on his user page, a declaration that he's a member of the Crips -- a criminal street gang, by California's definition, and I'm sure by many other jurisdictions'. The question is -- is there a policy against such a declaration on a user page? If so, what might be an appropriate action to take about this? --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he starts dealing drugs on out-of-the-way talk pages, or does a drive-by shooting of house, then call the cops. Otherwise, treat him like any other user. --Carnildo 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... This user has both red and blue on his user page. Maybe he's just a part-time Crip, or was placed in a position in the organization through a temp-agency. He probably just does clerical work, or maybe he logs minutes in Blood beatdowns. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Present: Ice Dogg, CaPiTaL lEtTa AlTeRnAtA, Madd Hamsta, Masta Bater
Apologies: E-Z Vauxhall Driver
Secretary: Thousand Sons
1. Beatdown productivity down by 12% on last month. Madd Hamsta to look into. Suggested this may be a temporary blip resulting from the recent shift of focus from 'critical' to 'lyrical' beatdowns.
2. Ice Dogg complained that CaPiTaL lEtTa AlTeRnAtA had owed the crack kitty $2.67 for two months. AlTeRnAtA replied that Dogg could "stuff it up his ass in pennies". A full and frank exchange of views was held.
3. Full and frank exchange of views aborted due to running out of bullets.
4. Mad Hamsta to order more bullets.
5. Any other business: Masta Bater questioned the long-standing constitutional policy of "Bros before hos". Argued that this was unrealistic, and that particularly fine hos should surely take precedence over some particularly fronting bros. Agreed to form a sub-committee to research how fine a ho needs to be. Members and budget to be decided later.
Next meeting will be 28th March 2006 if anyone is still alive. Agenda will be posted with a spraycan on the side of the Church of St Gareth of Glitter. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian)(talk) 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Karmafist (talk·contribs) for 24 hours for extremely uncivil edit summaries, which he has been warned about repeatedly in the past. His last few contributions should make the matter quite clear. Please note that the block is not enforcement of his ArbCom case, which is not yet completed, nor is it for the content of the edits. (However, the uncivil edit summaries being on new user talk pages is an aggrivating circumstance as far as I'm concerned.) -- SCZenz 07:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it. I think it's justified. Perhaps not as long as 24 hours, but I'm not going to change it. Left a note on KF's talk explaining my view too. NSLE(T+C) at 07:18 UTC (2006-03-21)
I find the whole thing with him sad. He was a good user, but he's decided that everything is ruled by "the cabal" and it's been his undoing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kitty. This is a depressing case. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... He baits people to block him and quickly gets the predicted response. Maybe ignoring the bait would be better; he doesn't seem to be doing anything I would call harmful. But if he really wants to martyr himself it'll be difficult to stop :) Haukur 12:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the ArbCom case is completed, you might want to keep an eye on his {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~, because he's hidden a link to his manifesto in his signature. Ashibakatock 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm... "09:27, September 4, 2005 Petaholmes blocked "☺♥§¡¡PhüçGèõrgëW.Bûsh‼♀♪►☻ (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, vandalism account)" NSLE(T+C) at 11:19 UTC (2006-03-21)
Oopsie; I only saw an edit on the particular user's account page. I should have double-checked the block log. --MJ(☎|@|C) 12:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Next time just drop a {{PUB}} on the userpage.--God Ω War 07:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Leyasu violating personal attack parole on his ArbCom ruling
User:Leyasu reverted an edit of mine, erroneously calling it
"disguised vandalism" when it really wasn't [82]
. Both of us have already been warned that calling good faith edits
"vandalism" is considered a personal attack, and he obviously has not listenened to either admins or arbitrators.
A little background on User:Leyasu; before and after his ArbCom case, he has been claming ownership of various articles and changing the genres of many bands to his liking ("gothic doom", which is not even a separate genre to begin with, and several users have told him this over and over).
He has been banned repeatedly for 3RR; he used an IP address "81.157.93.18" [83] during one of his blocks to revert another one of my edits back to his "gothic doom" claim on the Paradise Lost (band) page [84];
Proof that this is him is based on 81.157.93.18's contribution history, which shows edits on User:Leyasu's page.[85]
It appears he has been reported here by different users several times; I would appreciate that an administrator intervene. Also,the ArbCom ruling concluded that if he violated personal attack parole, he would be blocked for a specific amount of time.[86] --Danteferno 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:ImpuMozhi has removed citations multiple times and put :{{unreferenced}}, in multiple sections.
Looks like another content dispute for the most part, though the removal of citations is problematic. Someone else want to weigh in? --InShaneee 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I have worked with Mozhi before and I must say, I don't think he has ever vandalised. BTW are you a total n00b, or are you affiliated with that long list of socks recently permabanned? For details, see Talk:Rajput#Sockpuppets blocked and #revenge of the Rajputs' sock army. If you have a problem with Mozhi, then talk to him about it - you haven't even attempted to so far (under this account at least). I find Mozhi very co-operative and I'm sure he'd listen to you if you communicated your concerns to him. --Latinus 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User KellyClarksonFan1 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)
I have cleaned up the pagemove... vandalism, but the user has left the following message on his or her talkpage:
"My account was taken over while I left the terminal for 5 minutes. This wasn't meant to happen..."
What to make of it? The user has no significant contributions. — Mar. 21, '06 [14:25] <freakofnurxture|talk>
It all smells a bit fishy to me. Apart from a few edits to Kelly Clarkson on the 16th March, the vandalism edits started today without any other good faith edits being made beforehand, only to be followed immediately by the user demanding to be unblocked. It just doesn't fit with the series of events I'd expect to happen with a compromised account. -- Francs2000 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was my conclusion as well, you'll notice I didn't unblock. — Mar. 21, '06 [14:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Anyways see the user's talk page. I've tried to explain as plainly as possible why I'm not prepared to lift the block, but I openly admit to having the tact of a brick through your front window - perhaps someone else could phrase it better if the user asks any questions? -- Francs2000 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think VForVendetta is an inappropriate user name. Second (third, fouth...) opinions? Johntex\talk 15:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You seem to think it's obvious, but I don't see it at all. FreplySpang(talk) 15:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:U is overused, and I see nothing wrong here. If using a name of or from a movie is bad, then ban me now, because my name is from a video game. --Golbez 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Freply and Golbez. Is it a movie title? I wasn't aware of that. To me it seems to be a little hostile and may violate WP:CIVIL. I didn't explain my thinking because I wanted to hear other people's first, unbiased impressions. If no one else interprets it as hostile, then that is fine by me. Johntex\talk 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a movie that just opened in the US. Thanks for checking! FreplySpang(talk) 17:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Based on a graphic novel of the same name, no less!) -- I for InShaneee, aka InShaneee 19:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might watch this user, however, as one of our long-term vandals was registering numerous movie-related names recently. Ral315 (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accused of racism for adopting the terminology and illustration of the National Institutes of Health
I would like to hear some comments on the following incident @ Prognathism:
I replaced a picture of a skull [89], which has no copyright info and was marked by other editors as an exaggerated and insulting illustration (see Talk:Negroid [90], with this picture [91] , which is based on the illustration of the National Institutes of Health [92] and added that, according to the definition of the National Institutes of Health [93], "Prognathism is a protrusion of the jaw caused by malformations".
Whereupon user Deeceevoice declared that my edits "stink of racism"[94], that I "deliberately" redefined prognathism as abnormal and the result of disease" and that I
produced this illustration "to show that Negroid profiles are "abnormal" [95] and that "one could most certainly, and more accurately, assert it is Caucasoid profile which is the abnormal one"[96]. She further declared that my edits "smack of racism", and accused me of "deliberate provocation" and claimed that my edits are not factual but "pretty tacky and extremely ill-considered" . [97]
In support of her own edits, user Deeceevoice quoted Frank W. Sweet (author of several books about racialism, Ph.D. candidate in history and molecular anthropology and one of the few Wikipedia expert members) out of context, and then disrespected him after he joined the discussion [98] to rectify the quote: "I'll not play word games with you." ; "keep your questions about drug use to yourself."[99], "I shall return"? What's with the MacArthur impersonation? Woo-ooh. I'm shakin' in my shoes. :p"[100].
CoYep 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the comments on both sides have been skirting the edges of civility, I'd like to point out a fallacy in your argument that the NIH defines Prognathism as a malformation -- even the page you cite specifically says "A protruding jaw can be part of the normal facial shape a person is born with. It can also be caused by...". I would agree that the edits removing the normal occurance of prognathism were ill-advised. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, the definition is that: "Prognathism is a protrusion of the jaw (mandible) due to misalignment of teeth caused by malformations of the shape of the bones of the face". They further state that: It is appropriate to see a dentist or orthodontist to treat abnormal alignment of the jaw and teeth. However, also contact your primary health care provider to rule out medical disorders that can be associated with prognathism. and "Call your health care provider if there is difficulty talking, biting, or chewing related to the abnormal jaw alignment." But you are right, under common causes they say: "A protruding jaw can be part of the normal facial shape a person is born with. It can also be caused by inherited conditions such as Crouzon syndrome or basal cell nevus syndrome. You can develop it as a child or adult from causes such as gigantism or acromegaly." but I added this information into the article as well: "is either inherited, or acquired by harmful habits such as thumb sucking or tongue thrusting and results in teeth that do not meet properly."[101] I further put an "expert" sticker on it and also emailed a wikipedia dentist and asked him to check the article. Short of time himself, he gave me two other names to contact, what I did. So I still fail to see how my edits are deliberately falsified and "tacky", "deliberate provocation" or "stink of racism" CoYep 08:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see anything particularly egregious here, I see some stiff talking from both sides, I also see apologies and very civil parts. A note in case you weren't aware, ":p" on the internet is usually an emoticon which means "tongue sticking out" or "tongue in cheek". - FrancisTyers 17:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that someones edits "stink of racism", and that edits are deliberately falsified and "tacky", eventhough they are sourced, is a normal, acceptable behavior in your opinion? And Deeceevoice never apologized to me. If she did and I didn't see it, I would appreciate it if you could provide a diff. CoYep 08:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even though in each individual situation editors should assume good faith it should be noted that Deeceevoice has a history of accusing other editors of racism and many times accusing Wikipedia as a whole of racism. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if someone could point out how this picture [102] "smacks of racism". Thanks. CoYep 08:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hate templates
I ask admins to pay attention to the nasty revert warring over a divisive hate userboxes entitled Template:User independent Chechnya and the fork Template:User Russian Chechnya. Please delete the apple of discord which claims time and energies of too many editors for constant revert warring. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see hate in the template. Looks like you are just disputing which flag to use. And by the way, I think calling someone a terrorist is pretty divisive. Lapinmies 17:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Ghirlandajo has been vandalizing the template, but it didn't mean that it should be deleted just like that. //Halibutt 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
userboxes designed to enhance the community spirit, fine. Userboxes designed as troll and vandal magnets? Delete away. dab(ᛏ) 21:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UE (probably unencyclopedic) is not a speedy criteria.Geni 02:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia. So deletion of unencyclopedic material that has demonstrably caused strife in the form of edit wars is fully justified. If you don't want to be bold and do your part in stopping a festering dispute in its tracks, that's entirely your call; but don't complain when others take out the trash. --MarkSweep(call me collect) 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have caused strife in the form of wheel wars. Should I then block you or get an steward to remove you?
We have processes for removeing trash. They exist for a reason.Geni 23:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to address the present issue on its merits, you may be in the wrong forum. The point is, the templates shouldn't have existed in the first place, they were against many fundamental policies, including WP:NOT, they've been at the center of an edit war, and they were speedy-deletable per WP:CSD#T1. What little substance there is to your complaints can be reduced to "he didn't use the right deletion summary". That strikes me as a rather childish thing to complain about. --MarkSweep(call me collect) 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DarrenRay and Ben Cass and sockpuppets
Darren Ray is User:DarrenRay and User:AChan. He and Benjamin Cass are indeed different people, although they appear to have edited from each others' houses, both using their own accounts and their socks' accounts. Ben Cass (User:2006BC) has a string of his own socks.
If these guys aren't actually the exclusive operators of the phenomenon that the vandal-hunters have named "the Australian Politics Vandal" then they're the main operators. In addition, I'm now trying to work out what (if any) account Andrew Landeryou is using.
I've sent a fuller report to the AC. I also just blocked AChan as a sock indefinitely and DarrenRay for 48 hours for sockpuppet abuse to evade 3RR. Darren can, of course, still communicate with the AC via email. (You lucky people!)
And their obsession with small-time headkicking politics is remarkable. I got a query on my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party affiliation is. WTF. I'm with the "we're here to write an encyclopedia, not play pitterpat with people using it for petty outside ambitions" party. Thanks ever so much - David Gerard 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Diyako makes false additions to articles with pboney verifications
This user adds materils to articles and uses false verifications (i.e. blank pages or google search pages). He additional makes false statments and is protected by a certain administrator who allows him to make racist comments with a slap on the hand. 69.196.139.250 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That administrators name is user:InShaneee. That administrator has taken sides and is also out to get Kash. If you look at user:Acuman and User:Dikayo and user:Manik666 talk pages it is all evident. 69.196.139.250 21:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page appears to be reposted deleted content, yet the writer of this page stubbornly wants to keep it, even removing a speedy delete tag I placed. Should this page really be deleted or not? --TML1988 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me. The first version was deleted because there was no prose, just a list of facts. Although I do think we shouldn't call the subject of an article by their first name throughout the article, it's too breezy. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF
this is a really [bleep]ed up vandalism [[103]
and here's another 1, (wtf sand box vandelism >_<) [[104]]
66.169.0.252 02:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not vandalism. Experimentation is what the Sandbox is for. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
on 02:32, 02:30 and 02:26 UTC, 64.131.43.6, an anon IP added scrutiny to the sandbox! 66.169.0.252 02:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that any user can hit the "reset" link on the sandbox, which clears the page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox is just that, a place where anyone can do pretty much any edit they want with the only exception being things that are attacks against other people, threats, things that are detrimental to the wiki as a whole, illegal, or break the sandbox. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boiling point
Can someone please have a word with Ponce003 (talk·contribs) regarding the rubbish they were posting to Allen Chung? It's time I stepped back because the point where people start making false accusations of racism against me is where I reach my boiling point. -- Francs2000 02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia as MP3blog
User:Mike Nobody has links to a large number of downloadable MP3s on his page (scroll way down, right side of the page). Some are old recordings, some are spoken word, some are recent commercial songs. This user apparently has a history of disputes about fair use images in userspace (see here), and I don't know how this interacts with all that, I just know that it worries me that people are using their user pages to links to contentiously copyrighted materials. I may be off-base raising this concern, and I apologize if so or if this is the wrong place, but I wasn't sure where else to ask. Thanks. · rodii · 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. On balance I'd argue they are not really sutible userpage content but after my past skirmishes with this user I suspect someone else had better tell them that.Geni 03:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decidedly not suitable. Odds are, the majority of those recordings are still under copyright. We don't allow linking to pirated material from our articles; why should userspace be any different? --Carnildo 04:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So--is there likely to be any followup on this? Should I take it elsewhere? Drop it? · rodii · 05:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. Do you want to explain the problem to hiom or shall I?Geni 13:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh... point taken. I am not up for a big confrontation right now. I guess I was hoping "mommy" would take care of it for me. :) Well, I guess I was also hoping for a definitive policy statement on whether linking to copyrighted MP3s is permissible. · rodii · 21:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote:
"Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)"
And evidently deleted a number of links to full text authoritative scanned books on key subjects (e.g.,
probably one of the most authoritative books on horse
carriages ever written). For example, a book from the
mid 1800s with all of John Saxe's poetry (not part of it,
all of it, all the page images, and all OCRd for free reading
and search). Could there be a better link of the page
on John Saxe? These books are on CMU SCS servers with a handful of exceptions having to do with technical issues, and are
not by any stretch of the imagination up for commercial
purposes. I index them from a .net site which was built
at CMU many many years ago, etc etc. I find it abhorent that you would think Wikipedia could write a page on Saxe and prohibit a link to all his poetry in one place as originally published (for reading), with full text search (for research), when he was still alive. No second source
or vague statement about Saxe can replace reading his real poetry Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And evidently deleted a number of links to full text authoritative scanned books on key subjects (e.g.,
probably one of the most authoritative books on horse
carriages ever written). For example, a book from the
mid 1800s with all of John Saxe's poetry (not part of it,
all of it, all the page images, and all OCRd for free reading
and search). Could there be a better link of the page
on John Saxe? These books are on CMU SCS servers and are
not by any stretch of the imagination up for commercial
purposes. I index them from a .net site which was built
at CMU, etc etc. I find it abhorent that you would think
you could write a page on Saxe and then prohibit a link to all his poetry in one place as published when he was still alive. John Saxe wrote "six blind men and an elephant" but it looks like Wikipedia editors are just that: you can't recognize the value of the ORIGINAL source material from over a century ago and can only value vague second source descriptions of it. I honestly
thought, for a minute there, that Wikipedia wanted to get
out the truth and not be a commercial outfit.
Other deletions:
1. Weems original Biography of Benjamin Franklin written and sold in Philadelphia during the time when people who knew Franklin still lived. Free Full image text of early 1800's book, Full Search, and deleted this from the page describing the life of Benjamin Franklin.
2. *Actual* Little Golden Books scanned from the Golden Books Family Entertainment Library (corporate library, with permission, ten years ago) to show people what these books actually looked like on the page that only describes Little Golden Books. Free to read. Only full text copies free to read on the web (Random House later bought the company).
3. United States Army Regulations from 1861: not A SUMMARY, not a partial description, not a reference to some obscure ISBN number, but the actual book published in 1861 with every page scanned and full text indexed for researchers, on the US Army page talking about Civil War regulations.
4. Almost 2000 pictures from the history of art assembled by faculty from a half dozen universities and put in the public domain and labelled carefully as to content and provenance. Picked to be the most representative. Free to view at high resolution (pictures can go to resolutons based on average 20 megabyte jpeg. -- no attempt to extort
money for view here.) This on the History of Art page. What could be more relevant content?
5. An incredible book describing a Frontier Town in the old west cotemporaneous with the Old West (not a 'cowboy book'). This referred on the page that only describes second hand what the old west was like. Again, no ISBN reference but the actual book, free to read, every page as it was originally presented a century ago in full color, and search in full text.
The other cases are all similar. I hand scan these books
because often the original book is the most authoritative source.
I personally find that a library reference or a reference
to a book I have to pay money for is an afront, when the web should make these original source materials free to read, view, and search. To call these commercial links is beyond belief. It took me about five years to get around to putting in a dozen or so because I thought people might actually appreciate original source material. Obviously you don't. I suspect this is not a mistake on your part since you want to create "a printed or DVD wikipedia" which implies commercial intent on your part. Maybe you should look to a better calling and maybe all the people who contribute to wikipedia (as I have) should reconsider what they thought was a process to get high quality material out to the world for free access. —This unsigned comment was added by Rhtcmu (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 March 2006.
I think this is a borderline case. While the full text of these books is available for free, they are hosted on, or have links to, Antiquebooks.com, which states prominently on its home page, Antique Books, Inc. sells book digitizing services, book displays, book hosting, and book servers for the web. Contact us for any aspect of what we do. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free advertising. If you are truly interested in bringing these old references to a modern audience for free, I suggest you contribute your scans to The Gutenberg Project. Then there won't be any issue with possible use of wikipedia resources for promoting a private business. Thatcher131 04:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, contribute the scans to Wikisource. That would be a perfect way to get your "high quality material out to the world for free access", just as you say -- and it'd be warmly appreciated! - Greg Price 06:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
possible hacking attempt or denial of service attack through password facility?
FYI,
I have received two emails stating:
Someone (probably you, from IP address 204.111.91.40)
requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org.
I am not this IP address, I don't know if it is someplace that could possibly snoop on the reply messages and try to pirate my account. But I have not noticed any unauthorized activity in my account. That IP is apparently involved in activity posting messages at this site. at this site: [105]
I report this in case this is just one sympton of more extensive activity?--Silverback 05:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened to me a few times. Usually it's after dealing with vandalism. In retribution, the vandals try to get my password. However, all clicking that "E-mail new password" button will do is send you a message alerting you to the attempt, and of course it includes the IP address of the person responsible. Thus the messages you received. I guess it's technically an attempt to hack into your account, but it's a very amateurish one. –Abe Dashiell(t/c) 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating another sock to plead the case is bad form. Go back to your regular account and do it from there. I've blocked TheBringerOfPeace as a sock being used to circumvent a block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tubezone
This guy is really starting to cause trouble and I need some help. I`ll explain what happened.
A few days ago I came across the article List of misleading food names, I could tell that it needed a cleanup badly, so I started working on it. Shortly after that, Tubezone showed up and started adding questionable entries that I assumed to be a joke. I reverted the page, he didnt like that.
It all went downhill from there. He continued interfearing with my edits, I tried to comprimise, he didnt want to. I tried to contact him on his user talk, his only response has been to constantly blank it. Oh, and making veiled insults on Talk:List of misleading food names.
I tried for a while, and eventuly got angry enough to just stop editing the article. I submitted it to the cleaup taskforce, Tubezone didnt like that, and he removed the cleanup tags repeatedly. He still refused to respond to me on his talk page, or on the article talk page OR on the cleanup taskforce page. Today he decided to start harassing me on my talk page.
Im tired of this, I dont want to get my ass in trouble because of some random annoying guy. I give up and am putting these issues in the hands of a higher power. Jack Cain 08:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation: Colin McLaughlin has contributed for about two weeks and has made some valid edits to athletics articles. The edit summary you warned him for was definitely over the line, and his response to the warning even more so. His continuation to use abusive edit summaries on the Ken Livingstone article definitely warrants a block. I would perhaps have made the block shorter for a first time offense, a week perhaps, but I don't think that a month is unreasonable either. Since this editor has made some valid contributions earlier, I suggest that he be unblocked if he is prepared to apologize. Sjakkalle(Check!) 12:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems harsh given that multiply blocked serial vandals like SPUI have admins wheel warring over reducing a one week block for edit warring over the insertion of nosnense to an article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? Are you quite sure you know the details of the SPUI case? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have blocked such a new user for a month, although I agree his conduct was very poor and definitely warranted a block. However, given his reaction to your block, I don't think he's at all willing to change, and the result would've been the same, whether the block was one day, one week, one month or indefinite. I wouldn't have done it, but I can't see that you done wrong, either. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I worked out the block length by starting at one week given the nature of the comments, then considering as aggravating factors his refusal to apologise and general statements of disconnectedness from Wikipedia (which is particularly serious, because it so easily leads into major vandalism). A slight mitigating factor was that his worst remarks were in edit summaries rather than in articles. That all ended up with the one month. Naturally if he apologises or asks to make constructive edits again, it will be commuted to time served, and I may reduce to one week anyway if it would encourage him to be helpful. David | Talk 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be [106][107] and when Googling it, I did not find it in any open proxy lists. --Latinus 13:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't scan as open, although scans are not 100%. EssjayTalk • Contact 21:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image Deleting Bot
For Image:PhilOchs1.gif, Image:PhilOchs2.gif and Image:PhilOchsPoster.gif, Roomba has tagged them prepared for deletion if not used within 7 days in an article. Roomba is a mindless bot under the ownership of Gmaxwell who states on his discussion page and user page "Sorry. I'm too busy with my bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories to talk now."
The pictures in question, though they may not have been used right away, are certainly no fair use abuse as anyone can clearly see, seeing as the photographer has granted all rights to Wikipedia specifically. I have not had time to add enough information to the Phil Ochs article to add more pictures in. Had a human being been looking at this, instead of a bot, there would be no problem. So if there's a way that an admin can protect these files to prevent deletion, it would be appreciated.
The licence is a problem. Wikipedia is releases under the GFDL this means that all content is "free" (as in speech). A licence that allows only wikipedia to use the photo is not free because it means that people who copy wikipedia cannot use the picture. We only accept GFDL Creative commons and public domain images. Is the photogropher willing to release the photo's under the GFDL or one of the creative commons licenses? Also IANAL but surely the copyright owner of the poster pic is the artist who created the pster rather than the person who took the photograph? 217.207.153.114 15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to the photographer and is willing to release such a liscense.... but the poster had other fair use claims. The problem is with a bot auto-deleting.
There aren't any bots that delete images. There are bots that tag unfree-copyrighted images as needing deletion if they are not used in an article within a week, or remove images that are identified as needing deletion for some other reason from articles. Deletion itself is not carried out by bot. Jkelly 17:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the bots shouldn't, ever. Image deletions are permenant and cannot be undone. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if there was a bot that deleted images, it would be easy to make it first download a backup copy. There may be other problems with the idea of deletion-by-bot, but that one isn't much of an issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be copyright infringement on the part of the bot's owner... -Splashtalk 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked both after examining the edit history. NoToFrauds indefinately and 6 months on the IP. I will request a checkuser to confirm but I am pretty certain. If I am wrong I willl unblock accordingly.Gator(talk) 18:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We try not to block IP addresses for more than 24 hours because of the risk of collatoral damage. A 6 month block on an IP address is too much. The IP seems to be allocated to Apolo -Gold-Telecom-Per in Argentina - the contributions look like they come from one person - but then most users of that telco will be Spanish speaking. Secretlondon 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jimididit trolling to be a dick
16:45, 22 March 2006 David Gerard blocked "Jimididit (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (idiot trolling on Jimbo's talk. This isn't how to deal with a username block. Please take 12 hours to do something else.)
Jimididit (talk·contribs) was username-blocked months ago for his old username, Jebus Christ. He is now back and wants his old name back! And is pissy about it and being a dick, e.g. [[110]]. We really don't have time to deal with this level of stupidity, so I blocked 12 hours to give him time to think about how not to act like a disruptive dick. Review away - David Gerard 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has the right to complain to Jimbo! I believe you abused your tools! Shame on you! --Candide, or Optimism 18:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any opinion on the username issue, but I don't see why the block was made. I don't see any explanation for the block on his talk page, and I don't see anything blockworthy in the diff you posted. I don't know much about whatever previous episodes of ill behavior this user may have been involved in, though - it's possible your assumption of bad faith is justified. I think users generally deserve an explanation of why they were blocked. Friday(talk) 17:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, block reason is appears to have nothing to do with link provided, and nothing on the talk page, so I'm unblocking. Won't sweat the slightest a re-block that at least pretends to be following the blocking policy. - brenneman{L} 17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the merits of the block, calling someone an idiot and a dick is completely uncalled-for. Please, David, if you're in a highly emotional state, don't block people. As an experienced editor you should know better. Friday(talk) 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that this isn't exactly unusual for David. He isn't being rude. He's just blunt. It's just how he speaks. And, to be pedantic, he didn't call him an idiot either. Sam Korn(smoddy) 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is not optional, regardless of "how one speaks". I read "idiot trolling" as saying the person is an idiot, although I'm open to its intention to have been "idiotic trolling." - brenneman{L} 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...he didn't call him an idiot either". How do you figure Sam? He quoted it right there in the first line of this section, "idiot trolling on Jimbo's talk". See up there? Just below the section title where he called Jimididit a "dick"? Above the paragraph where he calls him a "dick" engaging in "stupidity" a few more times? Trust me... that actually is "rude", not "just blunt". BTW, if you are going for semantic games about how it was the 'trolling' (which... actually wasn't anything like trolling) which was "idiot", and not the person doing it... I'll skip the whole spiel about how actions don't have minds ('idiot' or otherwise) and the description thus devolves to the actor, and instead just say, "still rude". --CBDunkerson 10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the unblocking. It's good to know that it was a breach of wikipedia policy. How should I best complain about the actions of this administrator and seek an apology for the accusations? I've not once ever been involved in trolling and the User Jebus Christ block had nothing to do with trolling. It was a username block. David Gerard didn't bother to even read what i'd written on Jimbo's talk he just assumed it was a rant about the username and that was enough to accuse me of 'idiot trolling' and being a 'dick'. What the hell kind of conduct is that? Jimididit 09:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that complaining about his actions will get you nowhere. Wikipedia is not a petty society where you need to seek retribution against those who have wronged you. An apology, I believe, is merited, but pushing for one is not yours or anybody's place. A single breach of Wikipedia blocking policy is not acceptable, but certainly does not merit a RfC or Arbcom case. If, however, David continues breaching blocking policy in manners such as this, more action may be required. Werdna648T/C\@ 10:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for retribution I merely want to see some sort of acknowledgement that what he did was wrong. I'd like to think this is a once off thing and that he doesn't always conduct himself in this manner. I'd also like to think that wikipedia doesn't find this kind of behaviour acceptible. I hope we don't have a culture of bullying here. Thanks Jimididit 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange behaviour. His last edit however has been considerably shortened - which you asked for.So he is certainly reading your comments. Maybe he is really shy (I'm not joking here) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind... it was a most inelegant procedure on my part, but I got it working. -Mask 19:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for CheckUser/Archive
I had made a checkuser request on February 16, 2006, which was archived on March 18th and closed as stale. [111]
However, if you go on the evidence page, you'll see a longer list of 18 suspected, and more recent sockpuppets. There is activity as recent as March 21 and March 14th. How is this case then considered "stale" and closed? How are such determinations made? Or can this be relisted with active requests? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
problem is that our IP records only go back to the 20th of feb. User:Repartee has made an edit since the 17th.Geni 23:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the following suspected sockpuppets have made edits in the past month:
Can these be checked? The suspected vandal comes back each time as a new user, while sometimes editing from an IP which is coming from a school, — presumably a dynamic IP (198.20.32.xx). And from home (67.158.xx.xx), under an ISP (another dynamic IP). Given these are dynamic IPs, I'm not sure what can be done if they are sockpuppet vandals? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rgulerdem seems to be pasting notices on quite a few talk pages, asking people who have edited Islam-related articles to go to his Wikipedia:Wikiethics proposal and keep it alive. I think this amounts to wikispam, as I don't think he's had any previous interaction with those people.
We need some wikispam guidelines, if possible. "I know it when I see it" isn't the best guideline for admin action. Zora 21:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notice in question contains the phrase "pro-porn and pro-offense lobby" which I find personally insulting. When I politely requested he apologise, he confirmed the comment was intended for me and then repeated the remarks, trying to justify them. I have again asked him to retract his offensive comments. ॐ Metta Bubblepuff 04:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VS I've quit wikipoliticing (not enough margin), but I'll parachute in to pimp for the policy I started before I quit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.
This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 23:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd say that one seems fairly legit.Geni 23:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughs something odd about this one. Look at the contribution history.Geni 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a sockpuppet tag on his user page before he blanked it, and based on his edits I find it quite credible. So, just another sock. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, within 5 minutes of me cleaning up my talk page, he put another note on there attempting to guess my address. He got it wrong, but it's still threatening behavior. View the second edit here. Thanks again, zappa 05:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (user page, talk page)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely. Only edits were vandalism, and posting personal details (whether correct or not) is not tolerated. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freestyle.king was, after his last block had expired, reverting his user page to a state that, in my opinion, called for disruption of Wikipedia. (See [119].) I've reverted to his even older version (as I did previous to his last block). However, I would like opinions on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group, not an individual), deserving of yet another block? Am I wrong about this? --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many people have tirades like that in their userpage. The preferred version is acceptable, now it looks like it is protected to stop criticism. Lapinmies 08:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading, I can't see any calling-for-disruption -- more of a complaining tirade more than anything else. The criticism is mild (and arugably with merit?) so I can't really see any attacking happening. It does look a bit like heavy handed censorship atm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.242.221 (talk • contribs)
OK, per discussion, unprotected. However, it is ironic that this user claims that Wikipedia is suffering from lack of civility, when the user's edits are nothing but personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Why is this page black?" things are quite common, for a certain value of "common". There's nothing wrong with it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
umm...if you read my talk page. you'll know i copied "why is this page black?" stuff from this user called "Silensor" so yeah it is quite common. it is also unfair to say i'm making personal attacks because as you can see on my contribution, i'm becoming someone who is capable of useful edits. i even got involved in a new project. Also, Nlu is the one who told me I can post anything I want on my userpage and talkpage as long as I don't personally endorse it. If my userpage violate personal attack, isn't user "Jiang's" userpage and talkpage "Taiwan=shame" even an attack that provoke racial confrontation to a greater scale. This is like public racism and defamation toward a specific ethinic group and their president. I seriously don't get the Nlu's logic, no offense. Anyway thanks guys. I appreciate you guys taking your time about this issue.--Freestyle.king 06:45, 24 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.
Unblocked, in lieu of someone more familiar with the ongoing situation reviewing the all-too similar circumstances that lead to the bot-block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks by the bot are routinely removed unless the page moves are vandalism. It's part of the tacit agreement that allows the bot to run. While SPUI's moves may not be a good idea, they are not vandalism and as such it is inappropriate to leave the block from the bot in place. If someone else should wish to block him on other grounds, that would be quite another matter. I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation to do so myself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he also had no consensus to move the other way from where the articles originally were. So here we are at square one again. with half wanting it one way and half the other. Maybe we should have articles at both places. Because I see no solid consensus developing for either position.JohnnyBGood 22:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I saw at [120], the article did not have brackets until early March of this year, then that is when the whole move-war began. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 22:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. SPUI took it apon himself to move the whole state's worth of articles without discussion and when oppposition arrived and tried to move back so discussion could occur before there was a mass move he began the revert war. However in the interim discussion has now stopped and both sides have dug in and aren't budging. JohnnyBGood 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article naming revert-warring needs to be taken to an RFC now. I request that other administrators join me in enforcing blocks for further move-warring until this thing is dealt with in the appropriate manner. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again as I said... getting us nowhere really. There is a majority for California State Route XX but it's not at the 60-70% level. I'm open to suggestions. As I said before perhaps two articles one at CSRXX and one at SRXX(CA) would be the way to go. That way they can have their less informative infobox and their desired page name and we could have the same.JohnnyBGood 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that will work, since anyone can come in and just redirect, causing this whole mess again. I agree with Cyde, send this to RFC now. Not as a person v person, but as the article issue as a whole. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Mediation Cabal case open but no mediator yet since there is a huge backup. I would have done a RFC but have been reluctant to do so- should this be moved? Also, to make sure everyone understands, if anyone begins to move pages relating to California State Routes, they will be blocked, am I correct? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, move it to RFC and yes, anyone who moves anything related to the pages will be blocked. This applies to everyone. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token SPUI has been doing mass conversions of {{routeboxca2}} to {{Infobox CA Route}} without consensus, and a major edit war is developing regarding this. Could we make any conversions from {{routeboxca2}} to {{Infobox CA Route}} or the other way around a blockable offense? (For only the users involved- if there's a user who has no clue and changes the infobox then they're not included). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption is a blockable offense. Edit wars over so many articles is disruptive. I take this to allow such blocks. Ral315 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo2/Control Monger/Control Monger: Kill Or Be Killed
I've gone ahead and indef blocked the user and protected the account. I will AGF here as far as whether the user meant to impersonate MONGO or just liekd the name, but will kindly inform him that he needs to choose a new name. I'll also encourage MONGO to create some doppledanger accounts so this doesn't happen again. I've also deleted the first apge and will look at the second.Gator(talk) 21:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this issue had been resolved but it unfortunately appears that it isn't. User:Jayjg accused User:Newport of being a "sockpuppet" of User:RachelBrown on the 3RR noticeboard. RachelBrown has now left Wikipedia so this is just not true. Extensive discussions have been had among User:David Gerard, User:Charles Matthews and User:Phil Boswell which established that no actual sock puppetry was involved and all users have now been unblocked without any apologies for their unjust blocking (AFAIK). It is just not acceptable for a Wikipedia admin to make false accusations on another user who has good intentions and has made good edits. Arniep 18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've had extensive discussions with David and Charles myself, and it has not been at all established that no sockpuppeting was involved. Rather, it has been established that extensive sockpuppeting was involved, though it has also been claimed that it was merely meatpuppeting (a sub-variety of sockpuppeting). And, unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about here, since I'm the one who has all the original evidence, based on which 4 different Arbitration Committee members agreed that serious sockpuppeting was going on. It's only because of my own great forbearance that I haven't re-blocked the puppets; please don't make me regret that decision. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arnie, it's pretty obvious that one person is behind the Newport and Rachel Brown accounts (the same person who posts on WR as "Guy"), and I'm not aware that s/he has denied it. You have to stop responding to his or her e-mails encouraging you to start another fuss. SlimVirgin(talk) 18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No user asked me to do this, I just saw Jay's comment by chance, and, as I know it is not true it is not acceptable to make false accusations against a user who has done absolutely nothing wrong. User:Newport is a friend of User:RachelBrown's who took on watching articles in December that Rachel had started and started articles which Rachel had planned before she left Wikipedia after almost having a breakdown caused by certain users aggressive behaviour. It is true that Rachel and I asked people to vote on Jewish lists and categories on afd and cfd as there was a strong suspicion that a User:Antidote was voting multiple times (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments. The voting did not come as has been claimed under the sock puppeting or meat puppeting rules, as all the accounts that voted were different people who had been making independent edits on different subjects for some months before the alleged multi voting in November. The users were all friends of Rachel but at the time I saw admins asking their friends to vote on afds and cfds all the time so neither I nor Rachel were aware that we were doing anything wrong and the other users were never given a warning about it before being blocked (the users involved were: User:Poetlister, Rachel's best friend, User:Taxwoman, a university friend, and User:Londoneye, Rachel's cousin, all of whom had been making independent edits before there was any controversy over voting on afd or cfds). No action was taken by any admin to block the suspected sock puppets of User:Antidote despite all my work to demonstrate that he had broken Wikipedia rules time and again. Arniep 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-issue so I'm not going to respond again after this, but I want to point out that (1) you do not know what's true and what isn't (unless you're the person operating the accounts); (2) you forgot about "Lisa," the flatmate; and (3) I wonder if you have any idea how often we're asked to believe that a bunch of users live together, work together, edit the same articles, hold the same opinions, and even make the same spelling mistakes (maybe because they all supposedly went to the same school). SlimVirgin(talk) 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a non issue at all as I know that these are all different people with different names who live in different places and are therefore categorically not sockpuppets and as they all previously had completely different edit histories and did not join just to vote on afds or cfds they are not meatpuppets. Despite my requests to various admins including User:Kelly Martin and User:Ambi to review the information on the Antidote case none of his sockpuppets were banned and no comments were made in support of my investigations. I believe this dispute has been tied into the debate between people who are against Jewish lists or categories (such as yourself and Jayjg) and people who contributed to the lists such as RachelBrown and her friends (actually it was only when people started attacking Rachel that her friends backed her up re:the Jewish Year Book on Talk:List of Jewish jurists) and that unfair bias has been placed on silencing the views of these users as opposed to the lack of action that was taken against User:Antidote who attempted to force the deletion of Jewish lists and categories by using multiple sockpuppets (as well as numerous other violations, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments). The British users all made good edits edits completely independently before they voted on the afds and cfds, and I doubt that they all made those edits from the same locations and ips. I believe this should be able to be checked as presumably some instances can be found where they edited at similar times. Arniep 00:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You "know that these are all different people with different names who live in different places"? How do you know that? And you "doubt that they all made those edits from the same locations and ips". Why do you doubt that? As for my being against Jewish lists, that's simply false; I've even voted on AfDs to keep them. I simply want them to conform to Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR. Anything else? Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, the argument that they are the same people just doesn't stand up with detailed investigation. They all edited on completely different subjects before November and it seems extremely unlikely that they would have deliberately edited completly different subjects on different accounts just so that they could use the accounts to defend against an attempted forced deletion of Jewish lists by a sock puppet user that was going to occur in the future. I don't think they even visited afd or cfd before User:Antidote started. I have been in contact with them via email and they all have separate names and surnames, one of whom googles as working for the British government. SlimVirgin accused the Guy person as being Rachel- this is impossible as I asked him to ask Rachel to check the Jewish Year Book for references and he said why don't you ask her yourself and gave me her email, so it's highly unlikely that he is her and I find no reason to disbelieve that all the other users are as they are shown in the photographs on their userpages. I realize you are not against all Jewish lists but you did support IZAK's amendment to remove most Jewish-related lists. I personally voted to keep some of the lists involved in the dispute which I now probably wouldn't vote to keep so I am not in favour of keeping most of them either although I think it is perfectly acceptable to have a historical lists but I can't really see the encyclopedic validity of listing living Jewish people. Arniep 00:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I said I wouldn't respond again but there you go. Arnie, just because they gave you different names doesn't mean they really do have different names. Just because you've googled those names and found entries doesn't mean those are the real names. (And the one you mention as working for the British govt: it's a minor civil servant's position, and there's no evidence that person is connected to the Wikipedia accounts). There's other evidence linking them, nothing to do with check user, but to do with material that person has posted or e-mailed, and it can't be discussed openly because then he or she will know to stop doing it. In any event, it doesn't matter so long as they don't post to the same pages and act to deceive other users. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above it is not just the names that make it extremely unlikely that these are all the same people. They made completely independent edits on completely different subjects for up to 6 months before the voting on the afds and cfds, RachelBrown on Bible and Jewish subjects, Taxwoman on fetish subjects, Londoneye on London locations, and Poetlister on literature. Why would they have made four different accounts in advance to stack vote if they had never shown any interest in afd or cfd until User:Antidote started his campaign of mass sock puppet deletion in late October? The other users only started backing up Rachel after she felt she was being harrassed on Talk:List of Jewish jurists and they voted on the afds and cfds after me and Rachel asked them to do so. All the users involved have requested that their full ip data be sent to them but this has not been done. I still haven't received a reasonable explanation as to why an admin hasn't reviewed the Antidote case and the sock puppets of User:Antidote who wanted to delete the Jewish lists have not been blocked whereas these users who are not sockpuppets and supported the Jewish lists were. Arniep 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, Arnie, the difference between you and me is that your statements are all based on guesswork, "it seems reasonable to me" arguments, and e-mails from various alleged individuals with pretty pictures on their user pages. On the other hand, my statements are based on hard evidence, of which CheckUser results are only a part. And I'm certainly not going to release that evidence to you, nor to the often mentioned, but never actually seen, "request" by Rachel Brown that the evidence be released to her. We're not in the business of teaching sockpuppets how to be better sockpuppets. Now, since you are simply guessing about all this, whereas I actually know what I'm talking about, until you actually personally meet with the "individuals" in question, I'm going to have to insist that you stop bringing up this topic, which has crossed over the line from whining to actual harassment. Consider yourself duly notified. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a complaint about Jayjg (talk·contribs). He misidentified Baba Louis (talk·contribs) and Chai Walla (talk·contribs) as being sockpuppets of myself. When I asked him to reexamine in light of the fact that we were travelling together, he declined to do so saying that it was impossible to verify. I realize that he still would not be able to tell if there was one or three individuals, but he could have at least done nslookup and whois queries on the IP addresses to verify that the edits were indeed coming from first Austin, then the Hilton in Albuquerque, then the Taos Inn and a cybercafe in Taos, NM. At the point I made the request, I was already back in Austin, Chai Walla was in Seattle and Baba Louis had made a edit to my talk page from the Dallas airport. It should have been easy to verify that we had separated. I know records are only kept for a week, so refusing to revisit the issue means that when another admin gets around to looking at it, it will no longer be possible to verify the travel, only that we are now in separate locations. Either there should be a formal process to request a second opinion, or the first admin should be willing to look again if asked. —Adityanath 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read your explanation as well. It turns out you weren't sockpuppeting at all, but you "all" simply worked together at the same location, and then travelled together to other countries, where "they" were all using your laptop without your knowledge, making the exact same edits as you. Your story is compelling as Rachel Brown's. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they used my laptop without my knowledge. We were collaborating, and passing it to the next person who wanted to make an edit. We are all members of the same Nath lineage and have similar but not identical opinions on the articles we worked on. If you couldn't tell we were moving, you must not be very ept with network tools. Why would we all lug laptops to NM when we could share one? You are making an insulting assumption rather than looking again at the data and the subsequent data which would clear me. Why are you so stuck on your own opinion? Are you afraid that you will have to admit to having made a mistake? Even the person who filed the original request has now realized that he was wrong! —Adityanath 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has this bot been approved to do what it says it's doing on its User page? I see a request to do quick non-manual changes, but the request never explained what it was going to do. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
his anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi vitriol deserve a long block (see the history of User talk:Licorne);
he made numerous attempts to evade his block with various IP addresses (see User talk:Licorne for the IP's and block logs).
I am posting here for maximum transparency, because I think it is unusual to reblock a user after his block has expired (without clear evidence of misbehavior after the expiry). His talk page has also been protected, but I suppose he can email me if he likes. –Joke 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, the ArbCom reached a final decision, so if anything about this was controversial, it's now an academic question. –Joke 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The USAA page has a long history of vandalism by one user, originating with user Robertjkoenig, who was permanently banned by Jimbo Wales. Since then, numerous sockpuppets have popped up to attempt to prop up his POV airing of his perceived wrongs [Talk:USAA/Archive09]. It culminated with what I believe to be banning of several of the sockpuppets when children's pictures were posted in Koenig's diatribe.
The vandal has returned, with the same modus operandi, and reverting the page to the same language, and I request this sockpuppet be banned as well. [124]
I just want to add that Koenig recently said on Talk:USAA that the reason he is persisting is to get his material in Google's archives so it shows up in searches. I can't cite the diffs because the whole talk page was deleted and re-created without these comments, but I guess an admin can still see them. Anyway, I found this to be a serious misuse of Wikipedia and further cause to block all Koenig sockpuppets. --Allen 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism on my talk page
Recently, Randazzo56, Fat Carl and User:205.188.116.203 have all vandalized my talk page. The first incident happened when Randazzo56 began challenging my interests in certain cars (namely the Eagle Premier and the Plymouth Acclaim). I warned him twice about it, then he left a last message on my talk page stating that he "couldn't care less" if I decided to take action against him (which I obviously did). Then shortly afterwards, Fat Carl arrived and said "Im laughing at your knowledge". Then after I reverted that, 205.188.116.203 came along and said he would "rather be a vandal than a snot nosed little shit, like you." Since all three of these guys have vandalized my talk page less than two hours apart, have vandalized similar pages and were all blocked for various offenses, I heavily suspect these three are related somehow. --ApolloBoy 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to it. Who exactly are you suspecting the socket puppets belong to? Evidence? Violation? Using sockets in it itself is not against the policy. There has to be rules broken to request for a checkuser. --Jqiz 07:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid question, of course, and I should have made that more clear. The reason I didn't was that I'm not actually asking for a checkuser (which isn't done here) I'm asking if I should ask (over at Requests for CheckUser).
If, for arguments sake only, these were your sockpuppets then you'd have broken the 3RR and would have violated a policy. In fact, I think that if any two of the three of these could be shown to be the same person, it would be a 3R violation.
Again, not making accusations but we've got you reverting to the explicit image four times, fuzzie doing so once, Gmcfoley twice, Sn0rlax twice and the "very new users" six times.
There are lots of possible combinations there that add up to 4 reverts, especially when noting that both you and Sn0rlax only started reverting after sprotect was applied.
Despite everything I've just said, I actually just wanted an opinion on the bounds in which check user was applied, as it's not something I'm terribly familiar with.
It is only pretty recently that we even started to formalize requests for checkuser. I think rules and practices are still a little bit fluid. In my opinion, in a case of lots of new accounts immediately joining a revert war, it is not even necessay to request checkuser, they can just be blocked unceremoniously as obvious socks, never mind who exactly is whose sock. I think people have better things to do than play Sherlock Holmes with sock artists. dab(ᛏ) 08:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By doing this, you will ignore Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and all the precedent that goes with it. --Jqiz 11:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attacked
It has just come to my notice that User:Jimididit has posted a rather nasty message about me at Talk:Football#Conduct_in_this_article., then followed up with nasty crossposts at Talk:Football (soccer), Talk:Rugby Union and Talk:American football. I have never edited any of these articles, so did not have them on my watchlist. I have never had any interaction with User:Jimididit on Wikipedia, except for being one of the many recipients of his petition to get his old username back. He/she has not approached me to discuss anything. Basically, I wouldn't known him/her from a bar of soap.
As far as I'm concerned, going around attacking and undermining people behind their backs is unacceptable. On further investigation I see that Jimididit seems to be on a mission to accuse every single Wikipedia administrator of abuse of powers, and I am merely one of his/her victims.
Jimididit's grief with me appears to be based on the fact that I blocked User:J is me for repeatedly vandalising User:Grant65's user page with bad faith suspected sockpuppet banners, while not taking any action against Grant65 for posting good-faith (and probably correct) suspected sockpuppet banners.
I would prefer not to act to defend myself, as I might over-react, and I'm sure any action I might take would only feed the troll. If anyone out there is prepared to review the situation and take appropriate action, I commend the situation to your care. Snottygobble 05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an extension of the unambiguously named thread "User:Jimididit trolling to be a dick" above, for the brave soul(s) looking to take this on. At the very least, the conduct, if not the issues themselves, seems to carry over. JDoorjamTalk 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cart before horse? I know I'm tired and my eyes are bleary, but isn't the unprovoked broadside on Snottygobble from before the bizzare complaint on Jimbo's talk page? I also note that the guy's talk page is still mightyly bare of "hey, be nice" messages. Perhaps we try to modify his behavior positivly, eh? - brenneman{L} 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no; his comments to Jimbo predate his attack on me at Talk:Football, but nothing predates his attack on me in his very first edit. It has now become obvious to me that User:Jimididit is a sock/reincarnation of User:J is me, created for purposes stated in J is me's last edit. <sigh> the joys of administration.... Snottygobble 12:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attack of anonims on the color scheme of Harry Potter articles
All these vandals have edited Harry Potter character pages and changed the default Harry Potter colour scheme to something ridiculous . The first one was given a serious warning by Drini as well as myself, the second and third were both warned by me. This is starting to get out of hand as I've had to revert every change made. Check the user's contributions and you'll see what I mean. — File:Ottawa flag.pngnathanrdotcom(T • C • W) - 15:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (posted via NathanHP)[reply]
Formally this not a vandalism, but a content dispute. Maybe you should report them 3RR assuming this is one user with socks. I can sprotect all the articles to prevent sockpupeeting. abakharev 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...if you have time, I'd like your help and assistance please!
I'm a relatively new member, so please bare with me :)
I would like you help and/or advice in dealing with a certain user please. The user is question is Hotwiki. After making improvements to articles such as the Spice Girls (which I completely rewrote) and their members pages (Geri Halliwell, Melanie Brown, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Chisholm and Emma Bunton), its become very clear that hotwiki has a problem with me and constantly reverts any improvements I made to articles (best illustrated on the Geri Halliwell page, where he is also reverting edits made by other users).
There is a dispute over the Spice Girls discography; it was recently suggested that the Spice Girls library be merged with it and that the solo information included on the page be put on the girls own individual pages. The consensus agreement after discussions agreed with this view - with the sole exception of hotwiki, who seems to think he has some divine say over what does and does not go into the articles. And last night he made his objections personal, contravening wiki regulations on civility, in the Geri discussion page. This dispute has since spiralled and is effecting other pages. After discussions with other users on the best course of action, it was suggested that I should contact an admin to help resolve this childish situation - because quite frankly its petty and reflects very badly on Wikipedia.
Hotwiki is generally rude, arrogant and very hostile with a range of users - simply look at his discussion page and/or the additions he made to other people's discussion pages for evidence of this. His problem with me personally could well stem from outside of Wikipedia; I was a moderator on a large internet forum, which stemmed from a Spice Girls fan site. I don’t know what hotwiki's username is on the forum, but he has made it clear he was/is a member; so his hostility to me might stem from the fact I gave him an official warning or banned him whilst being a mod. Who knows. What is clear though is that he cannot continue the way he is acting because it reflects badly on this site and creates a negative and hostile environment.
Any help or advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated - and for now I'd like to keep this conversation on your discussion page (rather than mine) if you don’t mind. I am also going to contact one or two other users to see if they wish to make a contribution to this complaint, that way giving you more scope and different points of view. Thanks for you time - sorry to bother you over something so incredibly lame! Rimmers 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ready Aim Fire! 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
![[89]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Skullneg.gif){kind=link}
![[91]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prognathism.png){kind=link}
02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
19:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) - 15:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (posted via NathanHP)
