Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Striver (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 30 May 2006 (→‎[[User:SPUI]] move warring (shocking, I know!)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion



    User:Striver/users that view the 9/11 attacks article as govement pov

    i created a user sub-page to gather information, NOT to create dialog, and MONGO just deleted it outright. Could somebody undelete it? Is he allowed to just outright delete my userspace sub-article just like that? --Striver 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SPUI move warring (shocking, I know!)

    So I create a page,[1] and then SPUI comes right along and moves it,[2] despite many, many warnings that moving these pages pending resolution of the dispute is a blockable offense.[3] Is there anyone here who entertains even a fraction of a shadow of a doubt that he's going to move any other pages that I create, thumbing his noses at you guys yet again, if he is not blocked for this stunt? —phh (t/c) 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to check, you're absolutely certain that creating pages like that given the current situation isn't just a teensy bit provocative? —Phil | Talk 21:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've been creating missing pages, one every few days, in numerical order, for several months[4] [5] [6] [7] [8], so I would have to say… no. It is true that I chose a name that is consistent with the standard that was in place before Freakofnurture moved them all in what appears to have been a deliberate attempt to be disruptive regarding a matter that's currently before the ArbCom because of his and SPUI's actions. I was asked, and agreed, not to try and move the pages back in the meantime, and so I haven't. But I certainly have no intention of rewarding Freakofnurture's and SPUI's bad behavior by adopting their pet naming convention when I create entirely new articles. I've put a lot of time into creating missing articles for the WP:WASH project, since long before SPUI decided to start move warring with everyone, and I don't intend to allow two editors' disruptive behavior to stop me from continuing to do so. —phh (t/c) 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While it may have provoked SPUI into moving by creating these new articles at the name he current says we're all stupid for using, that's no reason to for him to go on a move spree, AGAIN. JohnnyBGood t c 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope - nothing wrng with his creation of these. The naming conflict shouldn't affect the writing of articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't be the only person thinking that arguing over whether the word Washington goes before or after the words State Route can scarcely be worth the wear and tear on keyboards, hard drives and fibreoptic cables that this dispute is causing. The Land 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims

    I have deleted User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims as it was listing Users by Username as having persecuted Muslims because of actions taken on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good delete, fair play. Snoutwood (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a permblock may be an order, but then again, I am not an administrator. Could someone promote me for all the good advice I've placed on this board? And my roommate would like one too, because he has been invaluable at helping me research these matters.Transcendetitized Artist 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to step out of line up there, but my roommate is one of those people that thinks he knows everything. He told me to ask for a promotion on this board. I told him that this was the wrong board! Sorry.Transcendetitized Artist 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Some sort of action needs to be taken against this user; he's just not "getting it". Also, Transcendetitized Artist needs to be blocked indef ... it's our favorite, the ANI troll, again. --Cyde↔Weys 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder what it is, that I'm not getting: I am well aware, that you have the power to block editors for vandalism any time you assume bad faith.[9] And I am well aware, that Zoe did not intend to persecute Muslims, but blocked them, because he wanted the cartoons to stay in the article.[10] Since I'm obligated to assume good faith, I consider the persecution as collateral damage. Furthermore I am well aware, that you have the power to censor critique on administrators.[11] Raphael1 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "I wonder what it is, that I'm not getting:" I think it's WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Tom Harrison Talk 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does WP:AGF and WP:NPA mean, that any critique on administrators is prohibited? Raphael1 02:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing any user of "persecution of Muslims" is a personnal attack, not a critique. Tom Harrison Talk 02:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never accused anyone. "Persecution of Muslims" has been the title of the article in which I've listed editors, who have been blocked for (re)moving the cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. I'd consent to change the title to "Victims of the J-P cartoons controversy article", but I'm not sure whether I'd still be blocked indefinitely. Raphael1 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not try working to create an encyclopedia instead of editorializing? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure that you'd feel more comfortable, if I'd forget about it. OTOH there are currently at least four editors unwarrantedly blocked, who could not only help writing articles, but they could help balance the bias too (which is IMHO even more important). Please tell me: Do you want a neutral encyclopedia or do you want to block editors for not sharing your POV? Raphael1 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have another question ... can we just block Raphael1 and get it over with? He's clearly not going to change his ways. --Cyde↔Weys 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the top of my head, with the exception of this incident, some spamming and some repetitive (read vandalistic) image altering on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (with corresponding neverending talk about how they need to be removed/hidden/etc.) Raphael1's editing hasn't been the perfect example of a truly disruptive editor. This list making does strike me as a bit egregious but only due to the language he used for the title and the fact that it wasn't done in a public "RfC" style format and he was spamming a select group of other editors talk pages to inform them about it. At this point the only reason that I could possibly see for blocking Raphael1 would fall under the "exhausting the community's patience" clause of the blocking policy... but imho that reasoning isn't currently applicable. If you're serious Cyde, I'd suggest you start with an RfC and go from there but unless Raphael1 repeats the behavior I'm mentioning here (for which he'd merit serious blockage), I'd say it's too soon. Netscott 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to know, that I've just filed a Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims. Raphael1 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate conduct by admin InShaneee

    Pantherarosa was listed on WP:PAIN for making personal attacks against User:Melca. [12] When I looked into the situation, I noticed that Pantherarosa had been removing warnings. I restored the warnings and add the do not remove warnings tag to his/her talk page. This caused Pantherarosa to start attacking me. I elevated the NPA warnings but (s)he continued. I continued to elevate the warnings but to no avail. I became annoyed and made one incivil remark to Pantherarosa. InShaneee posted a NPA warning on my page. [13] When I contacted him about it [14], he admitted that my comments were not personal attacks, but still refused to change the warning. He also said that all of my edits violated WP:CIVIL [15], when in fact there was only one. [16] When I asked him for an explaination[17], he pretty much resorted to "it is because I say so". [18] [19] [20] [21]

    Secondly, one of my comments was incivil towards Pantherarosa who had repeatedly made personal attacks against me. Wikipedia's policies go for all users regardless of circumstances, so an incivil warning should stay on my talk page. However, because I had made one incivil comment toward the other user, InShaneee refused to block Pantherarosa. Not only is this a double standard, but I was not even the one who had the brunt of Pantherarosa's attacks. As another user said on InShanne's talk page: Obviously you aren't interested to even consider that your action isen't the proper conduct of an experienced administrator. I agree with this completely, and to add on that InShaneee is refusing to punish Pantherarosa to make a point to me, even though I wasn't even the person Pantherarosa was originally attacking. The full discussion on WP:PAIN is here: Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard#Pantherarosa (talk • contribs) Paul Cyr 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator, User:InShaneee exhibited a double standard when blocking me. He blocked me and stated on my Talk Page, "You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. If a user comes here, to an encyclopedia, asking for information, it shouldn't be difficult to point him to such info". However, I spelled out for him expilicity how the answers I gave, difference, were w links that are sometimes in and sometimes out of the article, Scientology but are the most direct possible answers to the user's specific question. I also spelled out to him why the link answering, "when did the present Church of Scientology start?" is not present in the article today. InShaneee came up with the term, "linkspamming" to describe his blocking me for that answer. Then, in discussion on my talk page, User:InShaneee he made me a promise. "Fax us over some of those high-level OTs and I PROMISE you it'll get fixed up." [22] Left unsaid was "I'm with the Cartel, you should betray Scientology and Fax "us" confidential documents." Whether he is aware or not, such an invitation is unethical to make and would be unethical to fulfill.Terryeo 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with both users above. User:InShaneee's conduct is not proper for an administrator. There's more to being an admin than giving warnings out like candies and refusing to discuss related issues. User:InShaneee was adamant that accusing someone of trolling even if they are a troll constitutes as a personal attack, when I displayed that he himself has accused other users of trolling and that it's hypocritical he blocked me for 24 hours in retaliation.--Eupator 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Being unpopular is usually par for the course for admins, especially those who have SP type roles. I personally think that InShaneee is a good lad, a bit of a laugh. Thanks. Wallie 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe our statements don't address his sense of humor, but address his judgement. Though his sense of humor would be a subject that might be explored. :) Terryeo 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what's even funnier? I was warned by InShaneee for making a similar remark as Wallie just did. I imagine that if you weren't defending him, he'd give you a civility warning. In fact, mocking a complaint is incivil, so why don't you deserve a warning? Paul Cyr 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise you were hurt at my comments. I have said sorry on your talk page. I did not want to get in the way of your compliant. Wallie 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I have no problem with being called "a good lad". :) --InShaneee 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Inshaneee is quite right in saying that calling someone a troll is a personal attack even if they are trolling. Just like calling an obese person "fat" is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with cerebral palsy a "spastic" is a personal attack. Just like telling an ugly person they're ugly is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with low intelligence "dumb" is a personal attack. I could go on but I think you get the message. The accuracy or otherwise of a personal attack does not make it any less a personal attack. In fact, usually the accurate personal attacks are the most hurtful. Snottygobble 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not always. WP:NPA is pretty clear that the comment may be considered personal attack "if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." If it is a relevant and fundamentally informative observation, then by definition it's not a personal attack. FeloniousMonk 05:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling anyone a troll is always wrong. It is a device to get your own way when editing articles. Wallie 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Snottygobble on this. There is an additional argument here about not feeding trolls; calling a troll a troll is an indication to them that they have provoked an emotional response, and as such is an incitement to troll some more. Better just to leave the default messages. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eupator, can you provide diffs of where InShaneee accused others of trolling? I just want to make sure all claims are linked to with diffs so that we don't have people accusing others of lying. Paul Cyr 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at his contributions, you will find many instances such as this [23], I merely pointed out that it's hypocritical for which he blocked me for 24 hours.--Eupator 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see anything wrong. Will (E@) T 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not going to engage in this, partly because I qualified InShaneee warning against me, Eupator and Paul Cyr as a lack of experience from this administrators part, but to my surprise having seen him/her sign a disput which I don't ever remember having seen him/her even being engaged in or involved in or having even edited those articles or their talk page [24], I had to conclude that this was a retaliation to my remark about him/her [25], [26]. Administrators should not act like this, retaliating against a user like this reflect immaturity. Also, I am troubled that some veterans find it nothing wrong about InShaneee block against Eupator. While in practice there is nothing wrong in blocking someone for not respecting a guideline or policy, that the principal alleged victim here of Eupator remark was InShaneee, and to the measure that he/she took the decision to block him, I believe, InShaneee made this something personal and obviously reflect unexperience and somehow a lack of judgement. Also, that Lutherian is a troll, I will repeat this and should never be blocked for this. A checkusers has reflected that he is indeed a troll, he has done nothing in Wikipedia other then trolling and slandering members. Insteed of provoquing veterans of Wikipedia by giving warnings because those veterans have retaliated against a troll, he/she should work to prevent such things to happen. Fad (ix) 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling someone a troll is no different than calling someone a vandal - the characterization should only be made when assuming good faith is no longer reasonable. Otherwise, it shouldn't be considered a personal attack, as it indicates specifically whether an editor's edits primarily disrupt Wikipedia; it doesn't address any personal trait. HKT 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, though I think in most cases there are far better alternatives to using such terms. If a troll needs to be dealt with, he should certainly be dealt with, but I just don't see how saying "You're a troll" solves anything in most cases. --InShaneee 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True. When it comes to warning others, though, "Watch out - he's a troll" is easier than "A high percentage of his edits exhibit trolling, and this trolling is further reflected in his edit summaries and talk page remarks." Nevertheless, I think that "You're a troll" would violate WP:CIVIL rather than WP:NPA. HKTTalk 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been extensive about how to address a user, specifically the use of the term "troll", "vandal", characterization of individual editors, etc. Those were not the issues which brought this discussion into existence. InShaneee's (viewed by some editors) inappropriate blocking, inappropriate administrator behaviour was what brought this "good lad's" actions into discussion. Not the words he used, but the actions he took. To revolve around the words used denies the central issue which was the actions he took and the basis he took those actions on. Terryeo 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While were discussing this, these edits were given before and shortly after Pantherarosa received the final warning tag: edit summary [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] blatant attack [32] and yesturday she made two more personal attacks as shown here: [33] and [34]. Specifically, It cannot be tolerated that a kid playing snitch spreads unproven rumors at his fancy! and I do not wish to have to deal with trolling and bad faith slanderous kids. Pantherarosa has already received countless warnings and I believe has begun using sockpuppets to attack me as well. Could someone please block him/her? Given the edit histories of the suspected sockpuppets, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are Pantherarosa's. Therefore I ask that they be blocked indefinately, and the actions by Pantherarosa factored into the action to be taken. Paul Cyr 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I having hallucinations or am I really being trolled by (Personal attack removed) making bad faith, slanderous assertions, aimed at smearing my (and others') name?? Would all that be in anybody's interest, i wonder? In case I am not having hallucinations, should this (Personal attack removed) individual be tolerated here, playing all sorts of pranks and wasting everybody's precious time? (Personal attack removed) In case this theorem applies, i wonder how he could be helped, maybe by keeping his access blocked for a while, to to give him time for reflection; perhaps, as a consequence, leading to the possible revelation that he actually does not contribute a thing to this ENCYCLOPAEDIA but merely exhausts editors and admins with futile and bothersome trolling? His contributions log, in any event, is conspicuous with similar actions and I have chosen to observe it on my watch list. Pantherarosa 10:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the personal attacks, the diff is here: [35] Paul Cyr 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerry Jones/JJstroker

    Usernames:

    Problems:

      • HE MAY HAVE A POINT HERE, if a list of criminals were added under "Jewish Americans", many of you would object. How is that fair and NPOV to include Polish criminals only? Anyone?75.0.145.231 07:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's another issue. The point here is that he single-handedly removed the Polish American criminals list while working against deletion of the simialr Jewish American list - a double standard, and, in the case of his removal of the Polish American list, a precipitous act. Pinkville 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • POINT: After insisting that "far right" and "racist" were not terms that should be allowed in articles because we should "allow the reader to decide for themselves",[94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101] he inserted "far left" into a number of articles. [102][103][104][105]
      • AGAIN, HE MAY HAVE A POINT. How can the term "far left" be controversial as applied to those organizations? Wikipedia should treat the issue fairly and equally.75.0.145.231 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, the double standard he has implemented is in his removals of "far right" from some articles, while including "far left" in others. The double standard is the issue. Pinkville 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other problems include a combative approach to editing and removing source requests without answering them.

    Solutions

    • The edit warring over plagiarism is sufficient reason to block this editor until we can straighten out the improper edits. -Will Beback 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a block is warranted. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to cherry pick my edits and then show pages of edits and take them out of context and show pages from another account go ahead and ban me. It's not like you will let me defend myself anyways because you continually ignore what I have to say. You just have rocks in your head. You do not follow through with wikiNPOV policy and you continually put your opinions in the article because its common censensus among leftists. I even showed you my reasoning from wiki NPOV policy and you didnt even respond. With all due respect you are probably one of the dumbest people I have ever met in my life. I am going to make 5 edits right now applying what I am doing to "racist" articles and "Far right" articles and watch them get reverted. Just look at my next 5 edits. Jerry Jones 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly may defend yourself. What do you say about the plagiarism? -Will Beback 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, making personal attacks while a flock of admins are eyeing you with blocking on their minds is not the wisest course of action available to you. It continually puzzles me why people think prefacing an attack with "with all due respect" somehow means it's not an attack - apparently by magic. It is probably already too late, but I strongly recommend you reverse course, and explain your actions civilly. I assure you, no matter what you think, if you make your case cogently and civilly, it will be listened to. Kasreyn 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've run into the same editor, and noticed similar issues. He continually insists on inserting edits insinuating that "Jews are commies" [106] [107] Here's another "Jews are commies" edit: [108] Note, the source he is using actually says the Jews and communists are separate groups: J. Edgar Hoover said the Front was planning to murder Jews, communists and “a dozen Congressmen. Not only that, he is obsessed in general with identifying people as Jews, particularly as left-wing or liberal Jews. Here are a sample of his edits as Jerry Jones: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125]

    He's also been sockpuppeting, as User:JJstroker, making the same kinds of edits: [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] etc.

    As well, when he's not identifying people as Jews, he's whitewashing Nazis and right-wing groups, insisting that the Nazis weren't racist. Here is a classic edit in which he insists that the Nazis were not racist, but rather just patriots defending Germany from Jewish Bolshevism.

    Even more disturbing is his lying about his editing. When confronted with the fact that he has been continually identifying people as "Jews" etc., he denied it, even after being shown the evidence (of which the links above are only a small part). He has also continually denied sockpuppeting as JJstroker, even though his edits make it obvious, and it has been confirmed by a CheckUser. This, combined with his multiple copyright violations, makes it clear there is a fundamental dishonesty here that makes his editing incompatible with Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of this behavior in isolation I probably wouldn't censure. The copyvios are bad, but he seems to plead ignorance that he copied too much or didn't properly attribute; that could be fixed. But, all of it taken together, along with his weak responses (especially saying Will is "one of the dumbest people" he's ever met) -- well, I think it's a pretty damning portrait of a user with a certain agenda. The continual whitewashing of "racist" (to include changing "racist" to "racialist") and removal of critical information from the SPLC is what swayed me, and the throwing stones to hide his hands doesn't help. We don't need to waste time cleaning up after someone who edits in this fashion. · Katefan0 (scribble) 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've yet to see anything constructive come from from this editor, but no shortage of disruption. Time for that to stop. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Plagiarism is sufficient reason to block this editor. Adding improperly sourced material is a problem in any case. Doing it after explanation of policy and warning makes it completely unacceptable behavior and destructive to the mission of the 'pedia. FloNight talk 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding ignorance of copyright and plagiarism, there are numerous threads on user talk:JJstroker about copied material. He has referred repeatedly to the plagiarism of Martin Luther King, Jr. [138][139] so he is familiar with the concept of plagiarism. When asked to source the material he never indicated where he'd obtained it and instead gave original references from the original source as if he'd done the research himself. He wrote " I did a lot of work please do not remove it"[140] when defending one of the copied sections. That shows he's consciously lying about the copying. -Will Beback 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion: If the user engages in any more plagiarism or whitewashing, indefinitely block the user. JoshuaZ 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the evidence above is fairly overwhelming, but I'll just chime in that in my personal experience with this user agrees with the above, especially in regards to his POV-pushing. The edits to the "Racism" page linked above are classic -- first he removes a statement saying that the Nazis' racial policies had some role in the Holocaust. Then in its place he adds a line about how the Nazis believed the Jews were Bolsheviks. When this gets reverted, he asks innocently on the talk page why people didn't like his edits, and tries to argue that he was just trying to counter the idea that racism necessarily leads to a Holocaust-like situation, which was clearly not what the page said and not what his edits were trying to do. Personally I think he's an obvious and pernicious hardcore POV-pusher, and I am sure it is only a matter of time until he is blocked permanently. My only hope is that it won't take a long RfA to do so, since his behavior is so blatantly unacceptable. --Fastfission 01:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76#User:JJstroker uploading problem images for old discussion. Sorry, I can't contribute at this time. -- ADNghiem501 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can confirm that JJ is a highly disruptive editor. I think that he was given more than enough chances to correct and would support an indefinite ban. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    First sock puppet: USHistory (talk · contribs) -Will Beback 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RESPONSE Everyone this is Jerry Jones. I'm disappointed to see that I have been banned and I wasn't even able to defend myself. When the committee was making a decision I was very busy. I came back and I have found that I was banned. I called Will Beback stupid out of frustration. I feel that it was an accurate description of his actions. He reverted my edits continually for having a difference of opinion (Which is fine) but I contacted him many times to handle the situation like gentlemen and I was continually ignored. After my attempts to handle our issues in a decent respectful way he weaseled behind my back and did everything in his power to get me banned. I do not feel bad one bit about the remark and I felt that it was deserved. If he wants to act like a gentleman I would be more then happy to take it back because I am not here to be disruptive and cause problems. I want to contribute to wikipedia and address any issues that anyone has with me and cooperate fully.

    I don't deny that I removed "far right" and "racist" from many articles. I even removed "far left" from several leftist articles but Will Beback didn't mention that in his campaign to get me banned. It simply wasn’t necessary to remove far left from such articles because it wasn’t stated to the extent as far right articles. I removed it for a variety of reasons:

    1-I believe it takes away from the quality of the article. I think you should show why they are racist and not tell them. Courtesy of wiki NPOV policy:

    Let the facts speak for themselves Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

    You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

    This is the same exact thing for the word racist and breaks wiki NPOV policy. It takes away from the article to say "The KKK was a racist" and that is why I removed it. You should let the information speak for itself as wiki NPOV tells us to do. Will also didn’t mention that I left that the KKK preached racism in the article and I only removed one use of the word racist. I think the reader should be left to make up their own minds because it is an opinion whether we like to accept it or not. Should I go write for the Adolf Hitler article that he was a "racist far right" politician? It makes the article seem amateur and it's obvious. Don’t tell the reader show the reader. I told Will several times that I do not object to him adding whatever he needs to add to prove that Hitler and the KKK were racist. In fact I encouraged him to do so because I believed it added to the content quality of the articles so I don’t see why it was such a big deal. Will also made it seem that I removed everything and anything that made certain Nazis seem bad but that is not true. I was accused of moving the word "racist" from many articles but what Will failed to state was in the articles where I would remove racist I would actually leave other use of the word racist in the same articles. The plagiarism issue was discussed. In the 1924 immigration article I cited Nuerengers work in the disputed paragraph and added references. I didn't think it was a problem. If I wanted to pass it off as my own I certainly wouldn’t have cited the work as Nuerengers let alone add him as a reference. The rest of the work was from the official congressional record which is free for public use. I have had a thousand something edits and Will chose to cherry pick certain edits and took them totally out of context and completely ignored the reasons why I did it and portrayed me like I was doing it just to tick people off and be a disruptive editor. I feel that it was very unfair to ban me without letting me defend myself. I felt that I was a good wikipedian and I contributed much to wikipedia and I feel that the majority of my work was good. I will be happy to address any issues that you have but please focus on my Jerry Jones account. I will also leave voluntarily but I would just atleast like to defend myself.

    Woofie 13:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, several points. 1) No one has impeded you from defending yourself - isn't that what you're doing right now? And haven't you made numerous comments and replies in reference to these issues on many different talk pages throughout Wikipedia? 2) There isn't a tally sheet for users' edits, if you've made a thousand edits of which 950 are acceptable and 50 involve plagiarism, POV violations, etc. it doesn't mean that you come out on top! Those 50 (or however many) errant edits are unacceptable and undermine (amongst other things) the worth of whatever good edits you may have made. 3) Regarding the Neuringer/MacDonald plagiarism issue, both Will Beback and I (and possibly others elsewhere) explained to you that when quoting word-for-word from other people's work you must use quotation marks, otherwise you are effectively passing their work off as your own - even if you include a parenthetical citation. How difficult is it to add " before and after a passage that you have lifted from another source? Apparently, it's impossible. 4) Without going too far into minutiae, inclusion of the word "racist" to describe groups like the KKK is appropriate since such groups' raison d'être is centred on particular and unequal conceptions of race. Regardless, "racist", "far right", "far left" and other descriptive terms have to be employed on a case-by-case basis - they may be appropriate in some articles and not in others (even where they might otherwise accurately describe a given person or group). Your additions and removals of these terms, however, were made a) most times with a double standard, and b) some times arbitrarily (by your own admission). Either way, that kind of editing is contrary to Wikipedia policy and practice. 5) Your summary of your dealings with Will Beback is diverting, but hardly borne out by the record. I have read most of the exchanges between the two of you and have no problem describing Will Beback as patient, constructive, open and fair. In your comments I see occasional semblances of attempts to be constructive, but more often obstinacy, duplicity, defensiveness and rudeness. Even now you refer to Will Beback's actions as stupid and claim that he ignored you (patently false) and weaselled behind your back (again, false). My final point is this, if you should find your way back on to Wikipedia (and it seems you've already found another handle, Woofie, to do so), are we all going to have to go through this process again? How many times has it been now, anyway? I count 21 different usernames (anonymous included) for you on this page alone. This seems to be more than a repeated pattern and almost a plan. If some part of you really is interested in constructive work here on Wikipedia would you please just make use of it, and recognise that any destructive actions will be noticed and dealt with - yet again. Pinkville 14:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thewolfstar update: new sockpuppet meets naive admin

    Community banned user Thewolfstar's new sock Dot_Bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked. (Her obvious sock/meatpuppet Lamb_of_god (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already was.) Either username or sock-ness would separately be enough for an indefinite block, and Thewolfstar has even confirmed that Dot Bitch is her account. I apologize to the community for inadvertently enabling yet another soapbox for Thewolfstar by engaging in dialogue with her on User talk:Dot Bitch. In my block message, I advised her to get another account, edit harmlessly, keep her head down, and not draw attention to herself. She spoke gently at first, thanked me, and, well, then things started to go downhill; it's all in the History if anyone's interested. I guess I learned something. :-( The talkpage has now been protected, by User:Andrew Norman, and I've blanked Thewolfstar's rants from it. I won't be caught that way again — not by this user — though I hope to remain capable of extending even unreasonable last chances to problem users in general. Anyway, I advise any admin who might be tempted to assume good faith in dealing with any future incarnation of Thewolfstar to take a look at the development of User talk:Dot Bitch first. It's instructive. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Happens. Meh. Thanks for keeping us up to date. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Newest sockpuppet: User:Laplander. She apparently got logged out, because she continued editing as User:24.161.21.22, posting a long and convoluted message to User talk:Jimbo Wales calling for Thewolfstar to be unblocked and the many corrupt admins to be sacked. This is based on my review of the contributions of Laplander and User:24.161.21.22 . I've blocked Laplander indefinitely and the IP temporarily. Review of my decision is welcome. FreplySpang 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AOL block

    [141] - this blocked user must have been using AOL since I am getting autoblocked. Please help 64.12.116.65 15:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This probably seems insensitive, but If you get off AOL and get another ISP and it probably won't happen again. You might even save a lot of money! Due to how AOL works we have to sometimes block IPs used by multiple users to protect ourselves. We recognize that you may not be the one to blame, but we still get attacked. --mboverload@ 00:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right...that is pretty insensitive. --InShaneee 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    =( --mboverload@ 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You might find Advice to AOL users page to be helpful. FreplySpang 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin Jargon

    I wish admins wouldn't use jargon (windtalking?) which us users don't understand. Someone asked me to provide a "diff". I see "sock" immediately above. This stuff seems to have only crept in over the last few months. Wallie 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would only say 'sock' if I'd already said 'sockpuppet' or made it a piped link to WP:SOCK. However, the word 'diff' is in everyone's watchlist and contributions list and is the accepted technical term (see Help:Diff), so it can't and shouldn't really be avoided. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Glossary is a handy page. It's a necessary evil to have some specialized jargon in any field—having to explain what a 'diff' is every time we use the term would be too cumbersome. If you see something you don't understand, feel free to jump in and ask. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the previous posts to ANI by this user. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's to note. I don't use jargon. (not that I'm aware of.) Thanks. Wallie 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he's referring to your attempted scolding above -- but I also suspect you knew that already. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know. Scolding obviously didn't work. I left a note on her page too, re that I must trying to keep on topic, but I thought it was funny. Wallie 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then maybe you should consider taking it up. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    German isn't easier to understand than jargon (unless of course it is). -lethe talk + 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That one is. Means exactly. WP:FU in that link had me worried. Means Fair Use. Used to mean something else in my day, eg, SNAFU. Wallie 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you've taken my point. This is English Wikipedia, and it's harder for people to look up German words than it is to look up wikipedia-specific acronyms (which usually have wikipedia namespace shortcuts). People might not even know that "genau" is German, and even if they do, they might not know where to find a good online German dictionary (no, not wiktionary). So you've committed the very sin that you're complaining about, using language that isn't readily understandable to everyone here, and I think your transgression is worse. It violates policy (WP:UE). Luckily I speak German, so I can communicate with admins and Wallie. Want to hire me as your translator? -lethe talk + 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Salary. One barnstar a week. Wallie 05:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really trolling, Ryan. Too much overtime at the VDU? The question has been answered. The rest is just chit chat. No harm in that. Deleting it is unnecessary, and with that comment. It will die naturally soon. Thanks. Wallie 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What Ryan are you talking to, and how did this post get to the bottom again? Are you talking to yourself? I think admin jargon is the least of your worries. -lethe talk + 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might seem that way. Refer to log timestamped 7:11 24 May 2006. Thanks. Wallie 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    post removed by Ryan_Delaney (talk · contribs). -lethe talk + 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exicornt Vandal

    Curt-SchiIIing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note spelling is two capital i's instead of the L's), Curtis_S2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), imitating all the worst early behavior of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (my opinion, just a guess, this isn't actually Eddie). Editing from an AOL address, I believe, and maybe some others too. I'm going to sleep now, but admin eyes on Crossover (rail), Exicornt, and the deleted Eddie Smith and X-junction might be helpful for catching further socks of this character. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just caught one Bunchofgrapes. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- there may be others. It's someone pushing the "exicornt" neologism, and pasting the content of that deleted article elsewhere as well. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there are the pages Eddie_Smith, Eddie-Smith, Eddie Smith., Eddie Smith... and Bunohofgrapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... I've also S-protected Exi--- uh, Crossover (rail). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found and deleted two more, and blocked Dsvidortiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FWIW, he's using AOL as you can tell by the voting history here [142]. Antandrus (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's also DavidOr tiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Slambo (Speak) 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    db tagged User:DavidOr tiz/exicornt. Slambo (Speak) 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. I hate blocking these (AOL collateral damage, no doubt) so if anyone has any better idea, let's hear it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also now David-wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vandal_buster_288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Y-y-yoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Kingturtel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Main modus operandi is to create redirects to Crossover (rail) from pages like Exicornt; or exicornt,, along with corresponding redirects to the talk pages. Also common is sockpuppet voting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Dragons, messing with the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt, and voting in RfAs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is undoubtedly the "exicornt vandal" that has been hitting various Wiktionaries for a while now; realistically, it is probably all User:EddieSegoura. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Imposters of AlexKarpman

    There are a whole lot of imposters of AlexKarpman.132.70.50.117 10:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be more specific. The Land 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is trolling. He has a history of trying to get his whole school blocked. Just ignore him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is trolling, but there WERE a whole lot of impostors of User:AlexKarpman. I've been trying to investigate (see User:Woggly/Bar-Ilan vandal) but the extent is dizzying. --woggly 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

    NOTE: This user should not have been blocked. Please unblock as soon as possible. It is possible that the user's account was compromised. --Havenstone 11:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely, any unblocks should wait until after compromised accounts are confirmed 'clear' again...? Femto 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already removed this notice once as instructed as the vandalism has been dealt with, and the user indefinitely blocked. The user wasn't blocked by a bot as pointed out above, but by me. If the user account was compromised they have the ability to point this out on their talk page or send me an email. -- Francs2000 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: they have actually asked to be unblocked on their talk page stating that the account had been compromised, but looking at the user contributions and the short timeframe between vandalism and unblock request, an unblock just isn't going to happen. -- Francs2000 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Question No bot has the ability to ban, block, or I think even actually give a test vandalism message to. Someone back me up here. --mboverload@ 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Autobots can be programmed to do anything a user can do on Wikipedia, the question you should be asking is "should they have the ability to..." -- Francs2000 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tiger-man

    Tiger-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has up-loaded a string of images, none of which has a satisfactory source; I and other editors have tagged them, and the situation has been explained to him. His response has been to remove tags, replace images in articles, and engage in personal abuse. Now, however, he's gone one step further — he's gone through my contributions, removing images (whether placed by me or others) with the false summary that he's removing images without a source. As I'm involved in all the articles, by definition, would it be unacceptable for me to apply a block, or warn him that he might be blocked? If so, could someone else take the appropriate action? If not, would a block be precipitate? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him for a day. This is blatant WP:POINT violation, and the personal abuse is equally unacceptable. --ajn (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive edits

    Hello,

    I'd like to report vandalism (as in edits) to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.I.T.C.H.

    A guest with IP address 85.101.33.217 editted it several times adding herself to the characters list, believing she would be in the next comic then.

    We tried to reason with her, but it was of no use: we got ignorant mails in return ("Why the hell is there an edit button on it, then?"). You can read the discussion over here: http://www.tv.com/w.i.t.c.h./show/29931/a-new-guardian-/topic/13689-247766/msgs.html&msg_id=3503844

    We would appreciate it very much if this user would be banned from editting the article.

    Thanks in advance, Aaron van Geffen.

    Please forward this to WP:AIV if you haven't already done so. 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not sure if this ges here or not, but there is also a page dedicated to the non-existant character here, Aylin. At least I think she's non existent...don't watch the show. Anyways, it says it's up for speedy deletion, but that was a while ago, and I don't see it on the WP:SD history page. Krisorey 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Username?

    I think User:Kandal the Vandal is an inappropriate user name, but I don't want to march in with a sledgehammer before checking with other admins first. (WP:USERNAME doesn't appear to explicitly ban the word "Vandal"). Comments please. --kingboyk 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked that user a little while ago, but this post made me look a little more closely, and it seems that it is a positive contributor, so I'll leave a message on their talk page. Prodego talk 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The name is a bit suspicious. If someone merely identifies with the Vandals (ancient Germanic tribe), per WP:AGF I wouldn't have a problem with the name per se. OTOH, if they engage in vandalism, then the behavioral association is clear and WP:AGF is off. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps they identify with off-Wiki vandalism (like the spray painting of subway cars) ;-). NoSeptember talk 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which you see would justify a block under username policy, since vandalism is illegal! --kingboyk 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reminded of the saying "If you were a real Goth, where were you at the sack of Rome?" Zetawoof(ζ) 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stupidest history joke. Ever. But I'm still laughing, thanks! =D --mboverload@ 07:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as he's not using the name to make some sort of point, I don't see a problem. Chick Bowen 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet Demiurge011 evading block

    User:Demiurge011 is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Demiurge010 (itself the Nth sockpuppet of Ndru01 for N → ∞), created to avoid the block of Demiurge010. --LambiamTalk 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with vandalism

    What is the policy regarding people who vandalize, then revert their own vandalim 6 minutes later, then apologize? It's 65.79.36.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Should they be blocked anyway? The IP is owned by a school.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well we often issue a {{selftest}} tag for a first time of doing that, if it is being done repeatedly it is still disruptive to wikipedia and hence further warning and a block maybe required to prevent the disruption. --pgk(talk) 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, will do.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pansophia and article Kaiser Permanente, return after block, 9RR, personal attacks, blanking "on departure" of user talk page with warnings...

    The article was sprotected because of Pansophia's multiple adverse edits from a collection of open proxies. POV warrior now returned. Immediate action has been to set about reverting again, but also at this point inserting a link to the whale.to site which has been determined by RFC etc to not be either WP:EL or WP:RS [143]

    No discussion of any of the changes in the talk page.

    No response in the RFC on her conduct

    Action please. Midgley 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Something should really happen here, and soon. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any suspected open proxies should be reported to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies immediately. Chick Bowen 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We did that last time. Pansophia is, as well as blatantly using WP as a platform to launch an attack on KP (I suspect they fired her, I begin to be unsurprised) editing disruptively not least by flaunting consensus on acceptable links. I'm also tired of the personal abuse. Midgley 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "'Flouting, damnit,' he said pedantically." --Calton | Talk 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Flaunting his flouting. Midgley 10:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "'Dammit, dammit,' he retorted with as close to parallel structure as he could muster, lacking an adverbial form of 'parallel.'" JDoorjam Talk 03:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For convenience - a link to previous discussion and block[144] Midgley 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite blocks not sticking

    Today two separate editors whom I thought I had blocked indefinitely managed to resume editing. In both cases they were already blocked when I extended the block to indefinite - I unblocked them then reblocked, but the indefinite one still didn't stick. See the contribution histories and block logs of The Middle East Conflict Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I'm N' Mad-dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Am I doing something wrong here? Just how are you supposed to extend blocks? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin recently placed a one-year block on an IP address which didn't seem to "take" either (see here) - it was used a few days later. - David Oberst 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a go at fixing the Middle East Conflict Man block. I searched and destroyed all extant blocks and autoblocks on that editor, then reimposed it. Fingers crossed. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets confirmed but not blocked yet

    See here. This vandal is a repeat offender with an active farm. As directed by Essjay, I am reporting this incident here. Anwar 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threats from The Middle East Conflict Man

    While on the subject (two doors up), TMECM (indefinitely blocked per exhausted community patience not far up this page at time of posting) is now using his talk page to issue legal blather [145] [146] [147] Apparently, I "may be in trouble". Presumably Viking lawyers will be rolling up the Itchen tomorrow and rampaging through Southampton waving battle axes and subpoenas. Is this worth protecting his talk page over, or threatening such? I don't care myself, but someone might want to close his trollhole so well-meaning users can't throw food into it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected by HappyCamper. Chick Bowen 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption of Robert Byrd

    The Robert Byrd article is being disrupted (again) to make a point. A User:DanKorn and some IPs keep adding usourced info that hints that he is still a member of the Klan. youngamerican (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user:TheMadTim

    User is blocked, but keeps creating new accounts using proxies etc to beat block. User has created RFC against me. And has started 3RR against me and Request For Investigation against me.

    --Karatekid7 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Request For Investigation"? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFI --pgk(talk) 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFI#Requests Yeah a South Korean IP address has put a request up. I can not get it to proxy but, I would be surprised if the person is from outside of Britain or Ireland. --Karatekid7 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely Sock # 54 of User:VaughanWatch

    Alexis97 posibly opening an open meatpupet

    • User:Alexis1997's only edits are to his userpage. He stated his password and left a message in his talkspace to the effect of "I hate you all". Much mischief in this do I see, young Padawan. Pat Payne 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried the password and it didn't work, so either he changed it or it wasn't true. No reason for action for the moment, I don't think. I'll give him a {{welcome}}. Chick Bowen 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Antaeus Feldspar

    User:Antaeus Feldspar reverts[148][149] my indication of dispute (reliability of source) in an article[150] that has a case at the mediation cabal.[151] User makes no comment in talk page about this dispute until after I message his talk page.[152] He removes my messages to his talk page without discussion[153] with personal attackin in edit summary[154] and then makes personal attacks and general uncivility on the the disputed article's talk page.[155][156] --Nikitchenko 02:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The actual state of affairs is that Nikitchenko is trying to abuse the {{dubious}} tag -- he wishes to apply it to a statement of the form "X claims Y", not because he actually finds it dubious that X claims Y, but because he claims to find Y dubious. Despite several editors explaining to him several times how this is not a correct usage of the tag, he persists in this behavior -- and then trumps up reports like this one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User unilaterally and repeatedly removing image tags

    Evrik (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly and deliberately removing {{PUIdisputed}} from images listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images despite being told by myself and other users to stop. He has so far refused to defend his notion that these images are PD or refute (or even comprehend) our arguments: seehere, here, and here.

    In any case, since PD itself is disputed, he should not be using PD to justify the removal of PUI tags. He has been told this several times, but insists on continuing: see discussions linked above and here and here. Yet, he persists.

    I am requesting help here to ask for 1) more users to tell him that removing PUI tags before the discussion is over is inappropriate and/or 2) a block him for persisting just like how any user who repeatedly removes afd tags would be blocked.--Jiang 03:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Left a message for Evrik asking him to stop removing the tags until discussion is complete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And he went and removed the tags once more. --Jiang 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And again - can someone help here? How can we get him to stop? --Jiang 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BorgHunter

    This sysop speedy deleted a file violating deletion policy: Image:Lock-icon.jpg. The file was used for weeks on all template talp pages using Template:Protection_templates. As JPG it's clearly no dupe of any SVG. -- Omniplex 04:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's actually pretty strange. Have you contacted him? That's the first thing to do in this situation. It is probably just a misunderstanding on his part --mboverload@ 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a duplicate of Image:Padlock.svg? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Theoretically, CSD I1 only covers images in the same format. However, it is often used, in a sort of semi-WP:IAR manner (apologies for the jargon), to delete redundant images in different format when the admin considers the deletion to be uncontroversial. As Mboverload said, I'm quite positive BorgHunter meant no harm by it. Chick Bowen 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I suppose I should start defending myself here. First, I replaced all instances of the JPEG with Padlock.svg, because they were the exact same image but in different formats. Then, I deleted the JPEG under CSD I1. And finally, I left a note on Omniplex's talk page, which he has yet to respond to, when I saw him reverting my changes. However, per WP:IUP, the JPEG clearly is unnecessary, and the SVG is far preferable. Keep in mind that I changed all links from the JPEG to the SVG before I deleted the JPEG. This is common practice, and I've seen it on Wikipedia all the time. Once I even deleted a slew of PNGs that were replaced with SVGs, and nobody complained then. I'm not sure what the issue is currently, though I'm open to complaints. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Complaint posted on WP:DRV. It's impossible to misinterpret an edit summary "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate user name

    Sorry, but couldn't seem to find another location for this.

    Stawkerbot3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a bogus vandalism warning on my talk page yesterday (I'm guessing a sockpuppet of Bongout (talk · contribs), from context), but it occurs to me now that the username is inappropriate both for using "bot" and for apparently trying to confuse readers with User:Tawkerbot. Shouldn't it be blocked? --Calton | Talk 05:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, Daloonik (talk · contribs) seems to be a part of what looks like a sockdrawer, but I don't know if my suspicions rise to the level of being enough to request Checkuser. Would an admin mind taking a (quick) look and offering an opinion? --Calton | Talk 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll check it out. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked Stawkerbot3 indef as an impersonator, is definately a sock of Bongout, checking for other socks. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconclusive on Daloonik, no other socks at the moment. If anything else suspicious turns up, bring it to RfCU. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A Troll supports Vandal and takes over my talk page

    This is a bizarre issue. A troll keeps editing my talk page insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it. Now what exactly is the policy, if any, on talk pages? Anwar 06:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The vandal in question here had an active farm and his 13 puppets awarded each other fake barnstars [157], [158].

    The troll in question here is a fierce ultra-conservative nationalist who has been stalking me, for a fortnight now, for reverting his fascist POV and opposing his friends' unfit RfA candidacies and substandard contributions. Anwar 08:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Prin's Sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this debate, I have already stated below that I did not support Prin's sockpuppetry. However, I believe some of those barnstars were awarded by others as well. You deleted them all nonetheless. In relation to the rest of your comments: How can you say those RFAs are unfit when Blnguyen's made it to WP:100 in terms of support!! In relation to the Fascist Ultra-Conservative Nationalist stuff...that's funny :). Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, it's probably untoward of you to alter the text of his message (viz., by removing bolding, since such bolding isn't overly intrusive and is illustrative here; the header, OTOH, you may, in my estimation, alter as you like, though nevertheless consistent with WP:NPA and not where clarity is lost), but it is likely similarly untoward of him to revert your alteration. Nobleeagle, even assuming arguendo that he was trolling here (and I don't think he was; the tenor of his message is rather cordial), is not a troll, and your using that appellative likely won't help to mend the rift. Joe 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the only one with issues with Anwar. But if I am requested to do so, I will refrain from making any form of contact with him. That is if I am requested to do so. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, completely agree with Joe. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - right to refactor and reorganise doesn't mean you can give uncalled for apellations to other users. Also, this doesn't call for administrator intervention, so placing this comment here is wrong. Anwar, you may want to file an RFC and see what others have to say. --Gurubrahma 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific quote from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context". From the following diffs, I think Anwar is going beyond re-organization by changing titles and adding emphasis: [159] [160] [161] [162] [163]. It places the comments of others out of context. -- Samir धर्म 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I have a little more time now so I'll have a look at Anwar's claims. I believe they are false:
    He claims that: a troll keeps editing my talk page insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it.
    The first two words a troll are debatable on their own and Anwar has been noted to label very good editors as trolls simply because they do not fit his POV. keeps editing my talk page, I have reverted once and once only, I doubt that qualifies as keeps. Insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it, when did I say that? A falsehood if I ever saw one, instead in my edit summary (in the instance in which I did revert his talk page) I have said: you may categorize as you wish but you will not change anyone's comments against their will. Therefore Anwar's claims are false and purely fiction. Instead I believe he's just trying to get rid of me by hook or by crook. That's my say. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding formatting to change the intent of a comment by someone who didn't make it is at the least not very nice. Changing someones content goes far beyond your userpage, when people see someones comment they assume that is is verbatim from his keyboard. Other than spellchecking someone's comment to improve readability (and only when it's REALLY bad or you know that person) I do not beleive in changing them. --mboverload@ 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think he likes tips on his talk page at all. I told him to remove some copyright fair-use images from userboxes in his talk page so that he could remove them himself. But he labelled them as troll [164]. I reminded him again, but can't find that on his talk page. Later 2 other users forcibly removed them from his user page. There are many other issues with Anwar, but it would be pointless to list them all here. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's discouraging. Accepting advice from your peers is a great way to further yourself. *mboverload gets off his high horse* I recently came away from a fight with Cyde and I think I'm a better person for it. Not sure about him though, haha. =D --mboverload@ 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting words in people's mouths is completely unacceptable, whether it's on your talk page or anywhere else. Fixing typos is probably okay, fidgeting with clearly unintentional formatting (like if they accidentally start a line with a space, or somehow screw up lists, or whatever) is okay too, moving comments around or removing them is acceptable on your own page (although not always advisable), and adding a heading when one didn't exist is good practice. Putting words in people's mouths includes changing the semantics of their post, including the addition or removal of words, emphasis, and punctuation marks, and it extends to headings. All those are presumed to be part of the user's original post, and I would definitely revert any changes to such a post on sight, user talk page or no. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I forgot to talk about the heading of this entire discussion:
    A Troll supports Vandal and takes over my talk page
    A troll supports a vandal?? When did I say Prin's sockpuppetry was legitimate or alright? All I said was that Anwar's conduct with Prin was shocking, removing Barnstars from other people's user pages is a serious act. In that case I supported the editor that received the barnstar, and would have done so for any other editor, not just because this editor was a sockpuppeteer.
    Next comes the takes over my talk page, you have categorized all my edits as Troll and have not responded to ANY of my concerns at all. Have I deleted your headings?? No. How on earth am I taking over your talk page?? I don't think there's anything else left for me to say. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that another concerned user has posted a further complaint at Anwar saadats talkpage is in violation of WP:NPA below.

    Bar-Ilan vandal

    I've been forced to block the Bar-Ilan IP 132.70.50.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is a vandal who has been actively trying to get the IP blocked for some reason, but he is up to some serious shenanigans. He is apparantly a notorious vandal on the Hebrew wikipedia. I've been trying to keep track at: user:woggly/Bar-Ilan_vandal but the extent is dizzying. Expect woggly impersonators in the near future... --woggly 07:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly, there is a legit contributor coming from that university's IPs. Be on the lookout for collateral damage as well; we've already had reports of imposters on RfCU earlier today. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that this vandal has been very active on several different Wikimedia projects in at least two different languages, and his vandalism is particularly insidious, as he impersonates other users trying to implicate them as well. While I realise that the block I put in place is playing into his hands - after all, he WANTS Bar-Ilan blocked - I don't quite know how else to handle him. This is long term serious abuse. Perhaps even justifies his own Wikipedia:Long term abuse subpage? Again, see: user:woggly/Bar-Ilan_vandal (shaping up to be readable.) --woggly 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, I didn't say you shouldn't have blocked it, I just said to be aware there is a legitimate user on the IPs, and that collateral damage may turn up. Any new socks should be reported to RfCU so we can track his IP shifts. Essjay (Talk • Connect)
    No need to calm me, just calling attention, not upset. :-) --woggly 09:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threats

    Here [165]. Arniep 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for a week (will obviously renew if he continues threatening after it expires), but it looks like he has others. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the 'controversy' he was removing is unsourced, however (not that that justifies legal threats). I've brought it up on the talk page in question. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Bev074

    This user name has recently been created and used on a page on which I have edited, presumably in an atempt to appear as me. What can, if anything be done. Bevo74 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bagged and tagged. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It now seems that Bev074 is now Prince123 as they are vandalising the only article Bev074 was editing. Bevo74 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bevo74 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally Ahoerstemier who has not started reverting on Attenborough has a very similar name to Ahoerstemeier— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevo74 (talk • contribs)

    Dschor banned indefinitely

    In the midst of serving yet another week long block under the terms of his probation, Dschor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in another round of abusive sockpuppetry (see Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Dschor). Accordingly, I've banned him indefinitely for abusive and disruptive behavior. I think it incontestable at this point that he has any interest in decency or positive contributions. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support block, this says it all. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the "confirmed" tags I have a small thought. I should probably understand this, but if checkuser can confirm someone is a sockpuppet, why doesn't the autoblocker, err, block them? And I'm not objecting to the block, but I don't get the link. I just picked a few at random and they all looked fine. You don't like skiiing? - brenneman {L}
    Well, part of the problem is that they all weren't banned at the same time. Another is that the autoblocker only hits a specific IP address, unless a range has been specified. I think Sam's point about the link is that we're looking at the sum total of Dschor's mainspace contributions. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my point wasn't number but timing. Apart from two edits a month ago, he stopped editing the encyclopaedia at the end of January. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding those two edits, [166]. — May. 26, '06 [06:12] <freak|talk>
    I think Aaron is incorrectly assuming that all socks use exactly the same IP. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this. I deleted User:Huy User:Cyde/Flatulent as vandal pages created by the same Dschor sock. --Doc ask? 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He may have stopped editing the encyclopedia as User:Dschor because he was blocked. --Djumbo 05:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick check?

    I've blocked RK (talk · contribs) for 72 hours following a report by PinchasC (talk · contribs) detailing a contravention of the 1RR aspect of his his arbitration ruling on article related to Judaism. 2 clear reversions, 22h 16m apart [167] [168]. As his one year parole which began 7 April 2005 included a reset clause, apparently last triggered by Essjay (talk · contribs) on 15 January 2006, this seems the appropriate action. However, it is my first block dealing with a listing at WP:AE, and I'd like an experienced admin to check it over? Nice one, Deizio talk 12:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Challenge to User:Rgulerdem's indefinite block for "Exhausted community patience"

    IMHO User:Rgulerdem has been unwarrantedly blocked indefinitely for "Exhausted community patience". Apparently Rgulerdem has been using sock-puppets for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Segregation_and_security, which is a legitimate use for sock-puppets. His sock-puppets User:Mokotok and User:Light&Truth disputed the NPOV tag on Fethullah Gülen, which has been inserted by User:Azate for questionable reasons. Admittedly User:Mokotok has been rather incivil in his edit comments, but this is IMHO still no reason for an indefinite block. Raphael1 13:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no excuse for using sockpuppets to misrepresent consensus. The block is valid. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Resid Gulerdem's editing habits are bad. This is further confirmed from the block report found for his user name on the Turkish Wikipedia. He was previously permanently blocked for the same behavior and subsequently unblocked to be mentored by User:Johntex. He failed to abide by his mentor's suggestions and again engaged in disruptive editing in relation to several editors. At this point this permanent block is ridiculously warranted. Netscott 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (added after edit conflict with Netscott) Check out the block log: [169]. Rgulerdem hasn't gone for more than a month without being blocked since he started editing in early January. He has received blocks for an assortment of policy violations and general bad behaviour, including WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:OWN, WP:CIV, talk page spamming, WP:NPA, and now sockpuppetry.
    I note that while an editor may use a single sockpuppet for 'segregation and security', it becomes much more difficult to assume good faith when there is more than one. It's also not appropriate to use a sockpuppet for the purpose of prosecuting an edit war.
    The community is patient, but not infinitely so. If Rgulerdem were allowed to return, I can only imagine that it would be after an enforced break to cool down and allow him time to review Wikipedia's policies. Such a return would no doubt be under personal attack, revert, and sockpuppet paroles, and he probably would be barred from the article and talk page of Fethullah Gülen and related articles. Per Netscott's comments, I'm not persuaded that implementing and enforcing such a solution would be worth our effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately User:Raphael1 is further encouraging User:Rgulerdem to continue being disruptive. Netscott 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's okay. He's entitled to make a request on the mailing list. That request will be ignored and possibly belittled, and if he makes too much of a nuisance of himself, he'll get dropped from there, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netscott, pleace let me remind you of the quote I presented to you yesterday. I know, that this is not part of any Wikipedia policy, but it is in your own interest to still follow it. @Johnleemk and TenOfAllTrades: I accept the reasons you've given for the block. Raphael1 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe User:Cyde is right and I am wrong that the time for your own disruptive editing is drawing to a close Raphael1. Netscott 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Netscott, are you trying to intimidate Raphael1? --Irishpunktom\talk 15:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice demonstration of good faith there Irishpunktom when in fact I was making the case above that User:Raphael1 should not be blocked for exhausting the community's patience (as User:Cyde was suggesting doing) I illustrated his previous disruptive behavior, perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that he shouldn't be blocked. Netscott 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Raphael, the socks cannot exist for "segregation and security" purposes if they are not segregated. --bainer (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And the Wikipedia community says: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The community isn't going to make the same mistake twice. Rgulerdem's block stays. --Cyde↔Weys 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Kennedy

    Can somebody keep an eye on Ted Kennedy. It keeps getting vandalized. Someone had previously asked that it to semi-protected, but it was turned down. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    First Amendment to the United States Constitution

    Could some other eyes take a look at First Amendment to the United States Constitution. User:Pythagoras repeatedly attempts to add a rather opinionated essay to the article. Several others have repeatedly removed it citing OR and POV, among other concerns. Pyhtagoras appears to know enough to avoid 3RR, but now there is User:Just The Facts, which may be a sockpuppet (although the account has been around since October 2005, the only edits have been to that article and the talk page. Article edit history older ≠ wiser 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the user has violated 3RR as well. I've notified AN/3RR.

    New sockpuppet of User:Thewolfstar

    User:Thewolfstar has been banned for exhausting the community's patience, including her use of User:Dot Bitch as a sockpuppet. Today I blocked User:Laplander as another of her socks, editing both under that username and as User:24.161.21.22. She posted a message to User talk:Jimbo Wales that bore all the hallmarks of Thewolfstar's writing style. After reviewing Laplander's and 24.161.21.22's contributions, I am certain that this is Thewolfstar. Review of my decision is welcome. (I'm reposting this from above after a suggestion that it would not get read way up there) FreplySpang 16:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks right to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe we should stop hating and start re-educating. This is... What, fifth sockpuppet now? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure I understand you. We're supposed to unblock if they become a persistent nuisance because it means we did something wrong? We shouldn't reward trolls just because they bitch up a storm. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he's just saying that an ideal admin would have patiently and calmly sat with Laplander, explaining about civility and collaboration, for however long it might take until a mutual enlightenment was attained. Perhaps he's thinking of User:Boddhisatva. FreplySpang 16:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there's already been a great number of users (including myself, as one of the few that she actually liked) who tried to do just that. Absent any conciliatory gestures on her part, I see no benefit in spending time on a repeat abuser that could be better spent elsewhere. Tijuana BrassE@ 17:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:131.211.42.152

    I may have stepped into a problem with user boxes and offended this user: User:131.211.42.152. However, I have apologized and am not edit warring over it. Anything I have edited in poor taste or in error can be easily reverted without a fight from me. I ask though, that User:131.211.42.152 may be a vandal sockpuppet and should be warned for intentionally modifying my user page which I purposely posted via the {{subst:template name}} method to avoid unwanted changes on my page. If you see User:131.211.42.152's talk page at User talk:131.211.42.152, you will see that User:131.211.42.152 intended to make trouble. Wombdpsw 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Byrd

    An anon using several different IPs linked to the US Navy and Marines keeps inserting his unsourced POV remarks into the article. Not quite a 3RR vio, since they are using dif comps for each edit. Maybe the article should be locked for a while? youngamerican (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is likely best that requests such as this go to WP:RFPP. Joe 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block on school IP address

    209.18.49.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I blocked this IP address for one week for repeat vandalism. This is not much longer than two previous blocks from User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me of 99 hours. In the past there has apparently been no collateral damage or need to unblock this IP address. However, as this is a fairly long block on a shared IP, I decided I would post here and put the block up for review. If consensus is to shorten the block, another admin is free to overturn it without further word from me. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I heartily endorse this event or product. This IP (and the related ones) have a history of repeated vandalism, with historically little collateral damage. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that this is frequently true with shared school IPs, the recent block on 207.245.40.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) being a case in point. HKTTalk 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good job, frankly I don't see this as ANI-worthy. --Cyde↔Weys 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Cyde (and everyone else). I'm sure you know the whole routine about new admins not wanting to step on any toes. I'll try to limit "unworthy" posts. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If the vandal decides to make a reappearance soon after this block expires, please do not hesitate to report it to WP:ABUSE for further investigation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Ukrainian spam

    For a number of weeks now, Wikipedia has been enduring a large amount of spam originating from the Ukraine. Can someone please ensure that the following domains are added to the SPAM block list?

    • *.stvincent.od.ua - spam domain
    • *.odessa.ua - spam domain
    • *.rovno.ua - spam domain
    • *.pru.in.ua - spam domain
    • *.uzhgorod.ua - spam domain

    Thank you much. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That would need the attention of a meta administrator. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely meta administrators monitor this page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We do, but not every thread. I keep thinking we need a "Requests for blacklisting" page, but I know it'd be overrun with reports that didn't come near the need to blacklist. I'll take care of those listed here. For future reference, Mindspillage, Raul654, & I are all Meta admins, and fairly quick on the blacklist; there are, of course, many others, and anyone can leave a request on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Essjay. The domain suffix of this particular spammer seems to shift about every week or so, now I know who to harass when that happens next.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    John Adams High School

    71.193.97.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please take a look at this users conduct at John Adams High School. The user is adding questionable content while taking away credible information. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ILovePlankton (talk · contribs)

    seems to be having difficulty with his/her bot assisted vandalism reversion, and is reacting with hostility, user seems to have an odd history of near vandalistic edits, mixed with mostly vandalproof assisted vandalism patrolling, perhaps someone should talk to him/her?--152.163.100.65 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately, IP addresses from AOL often have vandalism histories. So does 152.163.100.197. I think this user just erroneously removed your db on YESSIR using VandalProof given the AOL IP, then made note of it when you advised them of it. Doesn't seem like a big deal. -- Samir धर्म 02:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, ILovePlankton is a "him" (says so on his userpage) and I have never known this . Can you not create an account or something so that your edits will be attributed to just you? It would be better than getting blocked all the time for using a shared IP (you are aware, are you not, that you are using an AOL proxy server, and as such, other users' edits are being attributed to the IP you're using?) I suggest finding ways around this or switching ISPs. — Nathan (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User names are just as vulnerable to AOL autblocks as IPs unfortunately, and tagging articles that have been recreated vandalistically, is easier when the people recreating them, can't follow you home, if you catch my drift--152.163.100.65 02:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then as I said, why don't you switch ISPs so as to avoid this problem (it comes back to AOL proxies)? — Nathan (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because switching ISPs just to edit wikipedia with slightly less inconvenience, is a bit unrealistic?--152.163.100.65 02:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's realistic when you consider that AOL changes the IP address you use every time you open/close your browser. If you are the one paying the bill, you have the power to change this. Other ISPs aren't like that and you'd be a lot less susceptible to a block for something you didn't do. I'm only trying to give constructive advice here, please consider it as such. I'm sure the admins don't want us talking about this here, please stop by my talk page if you want to have a talk about it. I'm only suggesting what I think would be best for you. Please take some time to stop by the link that I posted above (important note: there is even a method of bypassing the proxies that doesn't even require you to change your ISP). There are many many reasons why AOL is generally considered bad. Would you like to discuss this on my talk? — Nathan (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't like switching have you considered complaining about the problem to AOL? We can't alter the way AOL operates, but AOL can. If enough AOL users were to complain about the idiots to AOL then perhaps AOL would do something about it. --pgk(talk) 06:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I use AOL, but I wouldn't solely change to a more expensive ISP based on Wikipedia editing... Ian13/talk 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    HoY Vandals Returned

    64.185.45.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made the exact same, lengthy PoV edit to House of Yahweh that has been treated as vandalism multiple times. Previous to this instance, the vandalism was committed by 64.185.45.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as you can see, coming from the same general IP field - probably the same person. Can the page be re-semi-protected and this IP be blocked pls? - pm_shef 02:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • both seems to be non-portables, from some business in texas, registered through NTS Communications, if the block doens't work you should be safe with a range block (i think), on second thought, this seems more like a content dispute--152.163.100.65 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet of Chadbryant

    Chud Manzier (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

    I indef blocked Chud Manzier as a fairly obvious sockpuppet of Chadbryant who is constantly reverting to his version of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Postscript: I wonder if I should block They Call Him Flipper (talk • contribs) too, but as a sockpuppet of someone else. Perhaps a Checkuser is in order? --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Following an obfuscating email request from Chud Manzier requesting that I unblock him, I hvae decided to unblock him and will continue to keep my eye on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. If I see Chud Manzier reverting to Chadbryant's version again, I will block again. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exicornt Vandalism/EddieSegoura

    While checking into a possible sockpuppet situation on RfA, I discovered that Y-y-yoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DavidOr tiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both blocked exicornt vandals, are sockpuppets of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was suspected in the mass-exicornt vandalism on several other Wikimedia projects. Both had already been permablocked for exicornt vandalism, but a decision needs to be made on what to do with EddieSegoura. The floor is open for suggestions. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure connection? An indefinite block would seem clearly called for. See above section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay, how reliable is the connection? IIRC, the vandalism was done through AOL, so a CheckUser could be unreliable there. I would support an indefinite block if it were the case, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were AOL, I wouldn't have reported it as a confirmed result; I am aware of the proxying behavior of AOL, and the unreliable nature of thier IP shifts. The above named accounts are not using AOL, they are using a static non-AOL IP, they are the only users using it, and they are using it in a manner that dispells any suggestion of dynamic assignment. They are the same person. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are the same person, then indefinate block is in order. He has been trolling for way too long. DGX 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been roughly six months of trolling, FWIW. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've applied an indefinite block; further review, as always, welcome. Now I'm going to try not to get too maudlin about the whole thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the unusual approach of overturning Bunchofgrapes' original block and replacing an identical one of my own. I left some rationale behind the decision here. At the moment, I think we need to decide what would be the best thing to do. At the moment, I think what would be best to do is to leave the block as is, and any administrator who wishes to take responsibility for shortening the block can do so at their own volition. At minimum, the block should stay for a little bit, but in deference to the original blocking sentiment, I'd like to get more opinions and see what others think about the situation. Thanks for your time and responses. --HappyCamper 06:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The recent activities of his sockpuppets show that he still doesn't understand how to work within Wikipedia, or else he's been trolling us all along. And the cross-project exic*nt fun suggests the latter. But in either case, it's been six months, and I think the community's patience is thoroughly worn out. The block should stand, in my opinion. FreplySpang 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. Any others? --HappyCamper 06:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    <--- unindenting... Block fully supported on my end. I've dealt with this user before, and he has really, really worn out the patience of a lot of us, both here and at Wiktionary. NSLE (T+C) at 07:04 UTC (2006-05-26)

    I agree in that the block should stand; I also agree that Eddie's been trolling the crap out of us since the original Exicornt debate. He was fully aware that sockpuppets were the wrong way to go about things.  RasputinAXP  c 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the block too. Just wondering, is there any way a steward can check the IP range from this report on other projects, to be make a case for a Wikimedia-wide ban? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would require a separate checkuser on every project; if there is reason to think he's active on another project, then I'm happy to hand the IPs off to a steward so they can check, but outside that, I doubt you're going to convince a steward to set permissions on hundreds of wikis and spend several days checking each. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He also uses AOL, wth which he's been evading his block/ban. NSLE (T+C) at 01:02 UTC (2006-05-27)
    He's prolly upset over the whole ordeal and is sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late now, Eddie. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Never. What have I done to wrong you, Calton?

    RoF

    Should report that I blocked User:RingofFire and sock User:RoF indefinitely and speedy kept their AfDs... seemed to be going through articles and bringing them to AfD for nonsense reasons- ie. biographies, userpages etc. with "not a real movie! Just a hoax!" Blatant trolling, probable role account, some of their pages were speedy deleted. Please review if there's any reason to shorten the block/unblock. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    serial fair-use policy violator blocked

    Mike kelly09 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). — May. 26, '06 [09:07] <freak|talk>

    Zapatancas

    Facing an arbcom for harrassment of me, has vandalised my user page this morning [170] not for the first time. Can an admin please block him? SqueakBox 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean this? It's a very uncivil edit. On the other hand, you really shouldn't have advertising links on your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Wikistalker....

    Involed users User_talk:Fluffy999, User_talk:Damac

    Mahogany myself as the Advocate

    A recent request came in and user Fluffy/whatever felt that User: Damac was giving him unwanted special attention like continually editing his work the minute after he did saying his work was plagarism, unencyclopedic ect. Here's his statement:

    • The problems raised by this user with my work do appear on face value to have merit, but are a result of my inexperience. This user doesnt subject anyone else to the same scrutiny or same standards.
    • Since making my edits to "his" articles, (which arguably raised the articles to a higher acedemic standard), he has been on my back constantly. He has discovered "problems" with spelling, grammar, capitalisation of filenames uploaded, "copyright infringement", my "plagarism", my personality, etc. This has all been played out on the respective talk pages.
    • As part of this behaviour he has introduced two deliberate errors into articles. One I challenged him on, generating work for myself in doing so, the other remains in the article.
    • He is constantly hovering over edits I make, clearly watching my contributions page. For example he had reported "copyright infringement" in the images I uploaded yesterday within thirty minutes.
    • He had threatened me with "you'll have some editors down on your back once they pick up on it [the supposed copyright infringement](and they usually do without being told as they monitor what's uploaded."

    Despite me asking him why he is picking on me, and involving an admin, he refuses to explain or stop. Taken individually these actions may seem reasonable on their own, but as part of a campaign to harass it is becoming old and making my experience editing wikipedia a nightmare. I would like arbitration or something to make him stop this. Please help, thanks. User: SockPuppetFluffy999 10:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also Fluffy999 was even to scared to come to the admin. noticeboard b/c he felt that the user in question had so many friends that no one would listen. Any help would be appreciated also I want to know what options we have in this such as having them seperated somehow b/c this is horribly unfair to Fluffy Mahogany
    It's a bit early for arbitration. I see he has been asked to stay away from you on his talk page. I'd like to see if he does just that. I'd advise fluffy999 to stay away from Damac's favorite pages too, so that he doesn't see anything on his watchlist. Hopefully that alone will resolve the matter. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, the problem is that his "favourite pages" are the pages i've created or worked on. Pages he has shown zero interest in before. I have dbauthored all the images I uploaded to wikipedia- around 30, in protest at his treatment. If I dont do this, he will just challenge them all in an effort to harass. He had already been asked to give me a "wide berth" but ignored it, he is obsessed! Fluffy999 13:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:POINT. --InShaneee 15:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:I haven't had any contact with User:Damac, but Fluff999 has been less than helpful in resolving confusion over image licencing [171]. He has also, in what seems like an act of tantrum, removed the licence information from hundreds of images he had uploaded, see [172]. I think a bit of maturity would go a long way on both sides of this issue. Seabhcán 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello in response to the above comment by Seabhcan; Damac has now escalated his campaign by threatening me again, check his talk. I decided to withdraw my vouch for the copyright status of images previously uploaded to wikipedia as Damac will just report them all as copvios to bait and harass. My contributions to wikipedia are entirely serious and im not prone to tantrums or infringing copyright. My offence appears to be having a slightly higher awareness of the facts in articles Damac believes he "owns". He cannot stand this but nevertheless I really would like to go on making contributions without Damac perched on my shoulder the entire time- no one else receives this level of attention or scrutiny from him. Fluffy999 15:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of license plate images

    72.12.81.2 (talk · contribs) has been unilaterally removing images of U.S. state license plates from articles. At first this was done without explanation or edit summary, but the user has been recently claiming that they are "copyrighted" photos taken from his website. This website is not identified, and these are straight-on shots of the plates, so as to be nothing more than 2-D images of the plate design that I highly doubt could be copyrightable under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. In one article, he has also been claiming that an image is "fake", and was Photoshopped from his image. Postdlf 16:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue's being resolved in further discussion. Postdlf 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's a great example of a happy ending... KWH 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Where can I report open proxies?

    Hi, I'm a sysop on HuWiki and I believe that there is a global list of blocked open proxies for all wikimedia servers. Where do I report them? Thanks, 129.59.139.191 16:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You can report it at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. DGX 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

    Can someone block this person for username or for trying to impersonate the real person named Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. Thanks! DGX 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    According to that article, that name was actually rejected by the government; there is no real person named that. Postdlf 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but it's still an obscenely long username, don't you think he should be encouraged to change his username to something a little shorter than Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. DGX 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, our user name policy does expressly forbid "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers." and "Names that are extremely lengthy." Postdlf 16:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and pgk just blocked him for both. ;-) Hopefully he will recreate an account that has a little bit of a shorter name. DGX 16:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24.161.21.22 (talk · contribs)

    It would seem blocked user Thewolfstar (talk · contribs) is now vandalizing userpages under this IP.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, already blocked. Thanks. Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of 'Life and Times of a Dick Passion'

    I'm curious as to why this article was deleted... Dick Passion is a character that came into existance somewhere in the past two years via a xanga blog and has since gained a small cult following. There was a book put out sometime last year, a small chap book called, I believe "a day in the life of a dick passion" and contained some very funny situational humor centered around the character of Dick Passion. I understand that the article I submitted wasnt very thorough but it was meant only to be a starter page, something I'd planned on expanding as time allowed.

    It's even more interesting as the identitiy of the author 'the truth about dick' is unknown, with the exception possibly of the folks (there were two, I beleive) who edited the chapbook.

    It's far less nonsense than it is an intriguing (and humorous) character study.

    Could someone help me understand its deletion please?

    It was deleted because it is non-notable; only 3 exact Google hits. It didn't warrent it's own article. DGX 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, DGX.

    One more thing, if I may... how many direct google hits does it take to make something 'notable'?

    I would suggest reading WP:N to find out what is notable and what isn't. Enjoy!--MOE.RON talk | done | doing 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Moeron, that answered a few questions for me.

    I like to watch BasebaIl

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

    I believe this is EddieSegoura / The Exicornt Vandal again. Though this account hasn't obsessed about "Exicornt", it has shown very very similar editing patterns regarding the "New Jersey Dragons", including creating duplicates over and over again with punctuation at the end. Also, some likely Exicornt socks participated disruptively in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Dragons. Exicornt Vandal or not, the account is acting disruptively enough that a block is close to being in order, but maybe someone else wants to check on my train of logic here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep I'm convinced. I'll do the honours. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that above the exicornt vandal has been revealed to be sockpuppets of Eddie Segoura, and the same vandal was making the same New Jersey Dragons edits, this is definitely a sock of Eddie. Support Theresa's block. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Might want to keep an eye on the newly created User:I love to watch baseball!!. --InShaneee 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha! Bunchofgrapes said train of logic about the exicornt vandal. HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's endlessly hilarious to me. Phew... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I have referred to Eddie "derailing" the exic*nt AfD? :-) FreplySpang 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to share with the rest of the class, or is your hilarity merely a form of a personal attack? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What!? Nothing nefarious there. "Exicornt" was a neologism for a type of rail crossing. Train tracks, train of logic... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    <fwump><fwump>... Is this thing on?... Bueller?... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, here's a new one on me: an anon IP, 205.188.117.69 (talk · contribs) has tried to recreate the "New Jersey Dragons" page using the talk page. This stunt has been tried at least twice that I know of. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, he tried the same thing earlier at Talk:Exicornt. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SPUI again… does anyone give a crap yet?

    And here we go again. For the record, we now have multiple admins vowing to block anyone who move-wars over these pages AND an editor who's made it clear that he intends to continue these violations unless prevented from doing so. I agreed to "take the high road" here, but you know what, screw this. I couldn't possibly begin to guess why none of you are enforcing these multiple warnings, but if SPUI isn't blocked for this I'm going to go ahead and start moving pages back, because why the hell shouldn't I? Seriously, someone give me one good reason why I shouldn't. —phh (t/c) 19:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even as one who tends to take SPUI's side in the naming conventions debate, I can't see this continued pagemoving as anything but disruptive; I understood/hoped that no further move warring was going to take place, but perhaps a brief block in order to prevent further disruption is the only solution. Joe 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to block someone for moving pages around unless he's Willy on Wheels. This is a content dispute. Mackensen (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, we do block for disruptive behaviour in content disputes. I've warned SPUI ([173]) that sterile move warring is disruptive and pointless, and that he should wait for a more permanent solution through the Arbitration case. I'd appreciate it if any Arbs reading this would pop over to WP:RFArb and decide what to do about the case; it's been waiting for votes for the better part of a month, and this problem isn't going away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go back and look at my sentence. I said that *I'm* not going to do it. The editor appeared to be asking all admins why we weren't doing anything; I'm not involving myself in a content dispute. Moreover, the arbcom case won't solve anything, because the arbcom does not rule on content disputes. They need to hammer it out amongst themselves and stop bringing it here. Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about we have a community-wide poll to see which naming format is preferred, and then everyone just lives with it? --Cyde↔Weys 20:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Makes sense to me. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • mboverload@ agrees with Cyde for some reason
            • That's been tried before. The result was (drumroll please) no consensus. And in this case Arbcom can decide since this is a disruption point and has been for 4 months. This isn't a simple content dispute. JohnnyBGood t c 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think it was seriously tried before. Let's do it again here: Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please inform anyone you can think of who has an interest in this issue. --Cyde↔Weys 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • A consensus of members of the community is certainly preferable to an ArbComm decision (though I surely understand why ArbComm members would see no way out of this dispute other than their deciding a content issue). Mackensen, though, should note that the ArbComm case may solve things (though I'm certain we'd all be happier were we able to reach a decision as a community of editors); Fred Bauder and Raul654 have suggested that the ArbComm will/ought to decide the underlying substantive naming issue. Joe 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It would be an interesting step for the committee to intervene on that point. We'll see about that. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raphael1 blocked for a week

    Raphael1 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly complaining about the deletion of User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims and the upholding of the deletion at WP:DRV, repeatedly accusing the people who won't let him vandalize the Muhammad pictures article as persecutors of Muslims. Enough is enough. I have blocked him for a week. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds about right. He is getting rather disruptive. And don't forget his latest arguing for leniency for doubly-indef-blocked user Rgulerdem. --Cyde↔Weys 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am inclined to agree with this block but just for the sake of transparency in justification of it, some diffs should be added so that other editors/admins can easily concur with this deciscion or not. Netscott 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. There's instructions on how to remove it on the edit page of the article. Will (E@) T 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll give you a few diffs ... [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], plus the whole discussion above. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Zoe, now this report appears a bit more complete. Netscott 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some more diffs to further illustrate this report: [179], [180] and [181]. Netscott 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    General Eisenhower

    Can General Eisenhower (talk · contribs) be banned per WP:USERNAME and sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/May 2006#General Eisenhower? Computerjoe<span style="color:red">'s talk 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Absent disruptive behavior...no. Sockpuppetry, in itself, is not bannable, and the username policy is selectively enforced. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, nobody could plausibly believe the user was General Eisenhower. -- SCZenz 04:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just as no one could believe that I'm August von Mackensen (though he did live quite a long time). Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:SuperDeng was forced to change his name from DengXiaoPing. And the real person has been dead for a long time. He should be forced to change his name. He is in violation of "Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures (e.g. Benjamin Franklin; Chuck Norris)." --Woohookitty(meow) 07:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And he does claim on his userpage that "I'm General and future president Eisenhower.", coupled with a picture of him... Ian13/talk 08:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But Eisenhower's first name is Dwight, not General. So this user is only using the last name of a real person (and their rank). NoSeptember talk 09:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, so if I was to create an account called President Bush would that be fine, as I'm not using a first name? Computerjoe's talk 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that Bush is alive and in office matters a bit. If someone created an account called Ambassador Bush, I doubt it would be rejected, even though at one point that was what GHW Bush was known as (and unlike Eisenhower, GHWB is still alive). Besides, he's an established user, it would be different if someone registered this name just recently. NoSeptember talk 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • So would an account called President Lincoln be fine? I suggest the user is forced to change him name. Computerjoe's talk 15:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can see grounds for possible offence here personally too. THe fact the user is so established complicates matters. And couldn't editing under the name he is and being disruptive be a little defamatory too? Ian13/talk 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Would support block as user has been disruptive in the past, using {{admin}} in his sig to refer to himself when he isn't an admin. Otherwise, ask him to change his name to something like GenEis. NSLE (T+C) at 11:29 UTC (2006-05-27)

    How is a month old block relevant here? If he is disruptive now or in the future, he can be blocked again. NoSeptember talk 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Anwar saadat's talkpage is in violation of WP:NPA

    Hi - I respectfully ask for administrators to intervene on user talk:Anwar saadat. This user is using his talkpage in complete violation of WP:NPA.

    He is refactoring comments made by others on his talkpage (see user talk:Anwar saadat#My Wheel Bin) and branding civil comments placed by user:Sundar, user:Aksi great, user:Nobleeagle as that from "trolls." His is using headers like "A Troll's Melodrama," and when I warned him regarding his insulting behavior, he branded my comment as "A failed RfA's melodrama," in reference to my recently withdrawn RfA.

    He has been warned 3 times by me, and repeatedly advised to take down those insulting headers but he hasn't obliged. He has been twice blocked over WP:NPA violations by user:Nichalp and user:Essjay, yet this problem persists. He was also recently warned right here at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_Troll_supports_Vandal_and_takes_over_my_talk_page that what he was doing was wrong, yet he has made no attempt to correct his errors.

    That he is persisting in displaying comments by some users under those insulting headers despite repeated requests, warnings and punitive measures is a simple, clear indication to me that he wants to insist on branding the users as "trolls." This is a direct violation of WP:NPA, and in view of Anwar's repeated failure to understand this and correct the situation, I ask administrators to intervene and issue punitive measures, or guide me on how to solve this problem with him. Thank you, Rama's Arrow 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See this. The abusive format has been reinstated for some reason. I request administrative action. Rama's Arrow 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why has no-one responded or considered this matter?? User:Anwar saadat has serious issues on Wikipedia, especially his failure to conform to NPA. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing for votes

    ObRoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in wholescale canvassing to influence a requested move vote. A warning template has been placed on his talk page. He shows no interest however in obeying the rule. (But then he has engaging in widespread unilateral page moves for ages now.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What policy is that the FearEIREANN is referring to? I never heard that asking people to participate in discussion and survey is explicitly forbidden - and now is there some forceful rule to forbid it? ObRoy 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a rule against vote-stacking and talk page spamming and there has been one for a long time. --Cyde↔Weys 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be better to link to the policy or guideline in question rather than just saying "yes, there is." Than the person can read it, look over the talk page, and come to a fuller understanding. - brenneman {L} 03:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he's referring to Wikipedia:Spam#Internal spamming. Snoutwood (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SNAP. I've just come here with than on my clip-board, dammit! I refuse to waste it: WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming. ^_^
    brenneman {L} 03:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Am surprised to see that policy written down! However, he seems to ahve stopped. The Land 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timorrison

    Could someone take a look through User:Timorrison's contrib history (not long): the majority of his edits seem to be problematic, but often just on that border where other editors feel they have to assume Good Faith. He's just back on after being blocked (or perhaps just caught by a bad IP), and has created Mal Pedazo de Basura y Chatar, which is probably a hoax. Not sure what to do about such a splatter of incidents, but can someone keep an eye on him? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated sleeper account vandalism of Tenebrae (film)

    A vandal is repeatedly defacing Tenebrae (film), in spite of semiprotection; it looks like they've been collecting sleeper accounts. Protect? Just keep reverting them? -- The Anome 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say protection for a brief amount of time. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've now protected it and will lift it shortly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done likewise, and will lift it shortly. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if it would be possible to work a system into the software that would delete unused accounts after a certain period of time. --InShaneee 01:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. I would guess it is possible. Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Legally, we have to keep every account that's ever made an edit. -lethe talk + 02:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'm saying. Let's have a system to delete accounts that were created, but never used. --InShaneee 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Because this situation seems to be getting worse, I've thought about this a while and come up with an idea (it might have been proposed before or brought up tangentially). During the initial discussion about semi-protection, the number of edits was proposed as a criteria for the "cut-off point". However, the idea was rejected in favor of time restraints because it would require significant changes to MediaWiki to keep track of each user's edits. However, what if a new class of users were created? All of the vandal sleepers do not have any edits prior to the vandalism. A new class of user would be given out liberally, to pretty much everybody who has a history of good edits (i.e. 10+, etc.). Admins would have the right to promote regular users to this new class of users. A class of protection could then be created, restricting editing to everyone except "normal" users - in other words, anyone with a history of good edits, not just a 4-day old account. There are, of course, some downsides. First, it would take more work for administrators to promote users, but I don't anticipate that to be a problem. Secondly, vandals could also "get around" this new type of protection by making several good edits first. Regardless, this would make it more difficult for vandals to vandalize, and the "good edits" would also benefit Wikipedia. Finally, this would also require a change in MediaWiki structure - adding a new group of users - but I'm sure if the community comes to a consensus in this, like it did with semi-protection, it could be done. The benefits, I imagine, would be immense. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whew...I won't lie, that's a big scary idea, but I'll be glad to discuss it if you open up a page for it. --InShaneee 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I guess I'll be bold and go ahead and do so. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sleeper accounts seem to be a growing problem. One user I have been tracking seems to have a host of them to enable him to vandalise sprotected articles. The moment I block one, hey presto he pulls another one out and uses it for the same vandalism. I have blocked at least 5 from that one user at this stage. The timespan suggests that he creates them, then leaves them there until needed. I have no idea how many other sleeper accounts he has hidden around WP, but whenever he needs one he seems to be able to produce one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hence my suggestion above. --InShaneee 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deleting accounts that have never made an edit would have the same concerns as assigning the account to another user. See the proposal and ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Usurpation. Thatcher131 11:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    4 sockpuppets at WP:FAC

    See here the suspected sockpuppet activity. I've blocked each of the sockpuppets for extended periods, and blocked FruitsAndVegetables133 (talk · contribs) for 1 week. If you think the block times should be increased/decreased, feel free. --BRIAN0918 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seems appropriate. As these things go, it's fairly tame sockery. One week might be excessive, but not by much. Mackensen (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to do 1 day per sockpuppet, but I didn't want to take the time to count to 4. --BRIAN0918 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, this is better. Plenty of time for the FAC nomination to run its course. Mackensen (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know where this is supposed to go...

    ...but I hope an administrator can deal with it quickly. Someone posted personal info in an edit summary again. Don't know if its true or not or what, but it should be deleted? Responsible edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zez-Kai_Ell&oldid=53682585 . 68.39.174.238 05:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Got it; Deleted the version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An indef-block case from September 2005

    Going through the requests for unblock backlog yesterday, I found a case which was an indef-block from September 2005. The user had made only four edits before he was blocked. Since then he's continued to edit his talk page asking for unblocks, or discussion, and has remained remarkably civil. I've notified the original blocking admin (User:Fawcett5), but he hasn't been on in a bit, so I'm sending it here (possibly again; see below).

    User blocked is Jacknstock. Request for unblock was made with the following reason:

    1) I believe I have been banned for sufficient time. 2) My edits were not intended as vandalism. 3) I did not receive any warning, notification or opportunity to discuss Fawcett5's concern prior to my banning.

    I'd also like to point out User_talk:Jacknstock#WP:ANI, and possible history of this case being posted to here without much resulting discussion. Quoting the user,

    Given the opportunity, I would have argued that my edits were an attempt to provide additional or alternative information, and thus were not vandalism. I certainly wouldn't have persisted with similar edits against the objections of other contributors (even without the possibility of being banned) because it's simply not that important to me.

    Is anyone willing to assume good faith and unblock this user? I personally would like to, but would rather have input from blocking admin (or, as in this case, failing that, everyone else). NSLE (T+C) at 06:45 UTC (2006-05-27)

    Latest update: Theresa knott says she has unblocked the user. Thanks. NSLE (T+C) at 06:57 UTC (2006-05-27)


    Seems a pretty straightforward case to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like an inappropriate use of admin powers by Fawcett5 half a year ago. I look forward to hearing a justification, maybe I'm wrong. -lethe talk + 07:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes maybe you are. I take it you did actually look at jacknstocks contributions, the previous discussion on AN and the history of the article in question prior to the edits? I also take it that you are familiar with the GNAA and how they tend to operate? I undid Fawcett5's block because I feel that the time elased has been plenty enough and want to assume good faith and welcome a potential good editor, however i don't feel that Fawcette needs to justify his actions from months ago. That would serve no particluar purpose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not familiar with the GNAA nor how they tend to operate. Do the 4 edits by the blocked user suggest a GNAA vandal? -lethe talk + 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not 100% sure either way, however I can see why Fawcett5 might have thought so. However Jacknstock assures me that he is not, and so I like to AGF. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated vandalism of Theo Walcott

    Over the past two days, Theo Walcott has been repeatedly vandalised by a succession of anonymous IP addresses. Is there anything that can be done about it? Angmering 10:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. NSLE (T+C) at 10:15 UTC (2006-05-27)

    Personal attack from admin

    In this, User:Jtdirl is calling me a vandal: [182]. It seems that Jtdirl is a sysop, so (s)he should know better than to flame such personal attacks when disputing about content. Such accusation in a debate disrupts Wikipedia consensus-seeking process. Seems that Jtdirl treats many people in a disruptive way. ObRoy 11:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He didn't call you a vandal. He warned you that you would be blocked if you continued to canvas for votes. Nandesuka 11:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In what part of Jtdirl's writing is there such a warning - Jtdirl wrote "Note: "vandal|ObRoy" has been engaged in widespread canvassing of users to explicitly influence the vote here. His behaviour has been reported on the WP:ANI page." Whereas I find that Jtdirl used the term "vandal". ObRoy 11:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of worrying about what the template is called, I suggest you stop canvassing users. It is considered improper. Continued activity of this sort will result in a block. Nandesuka 12:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We do need a new name for that template though. It's needlessly offensive. HenryFlower 11:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde proposed this a fortnight ago on Template talk:Vandal, and there seems to be agreement (I certainly agree), but no-one seems to have done the move. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're at it, we should rename {{admin}} so that the use of it does not necessarily indicate a claim to be an admin. NoSeptember talk 12:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my understanding that the admin template includes links that are only relevant to an administrator (blocks, protections, etc). So admin is an appropriate name.
    I do agree that the "vandal" template should proably have a less offensive name, simply because the most common uses of the template do not refer to vandals at all. Though for operational reasons (and because not everybody will immediately switch to using any new name) the redirect from Template:Vandal must remain in place. --Tony Sidaway
    I think we could use something easy as full, as it gives the fukll set of links to information. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some non-admins we can use {{admin}} for, such as the growing ranks of former admins. As an aside, I never liked the text space that {{admin}} uses, which is why I use {{admin-abbr}} instead, which gives me this: NoSeptember (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) NoSeptember talk 13:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I'm glad my suggested {{userlinks}} change was accepted. I've been using it for over a week now, and it definitely doesn't have the same kind of stigma that {{vandal}} did. Now, how to get people to start using this one? Or should I just have Cydebot go through, replace all of the old redirects, and then delete {{vandal}}? --Cyde↔Weys 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article "ALI ZAFAR"

    Hello, I had asked my associate to write an article on the pop music singer "Ali Zafar". He did an awful job of it. Hence, led to the deletion of the article, otherwise. I tried to write one, again. I did and saved the page. Yet, it has been deleted by the admins. Please, tell me what needs to be put right, for it to meet the wikipedia standards. Thank You, User: Ali Zafar!

    WP:MUSIC is a general guideline for notability of music artists. See if you are notable Will (E@) T 14:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm taking this to User talk:Ali Zafar, as this is more of a newbie issue than one needing admin intervention. At first glance, we should have an article on this guy, and I have an interest in the topic so I'll probably have a go at writing a decently sourced article myself. However, there are issues of either autobiography or inappropriate usernaming with User:Ali Zafar. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mostssa

    The user keeps inserting vandalism tag on my discussion page. As I find this slanderous, I have reverted his attempts over the last 2 hours on almost a dozen occasions. However, he just won't give up. Moreover, he refuses to resort to RfC. The move is obviously motivated by the content dispute on Tourism in Croatia where a decision is pending concerning his breach of 3RR. This has now become an open harassment and I want him to stop or be stopped. I have refused to engage in personal attacks or retaliatory actions such as insertion of a similar tag on his page because it is plain abuse directed at diminishing one's reputation. EurowikiJ 14:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, on closer inspection I have noticed that User:Mostssa has been insinuating that such warning is warranted as I had received such warnings on previous two occasions. He is right, as they have come from this reputable user user:Primadol. EurowikiJ 15:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation has now been aggravated by the user's decision to start canvassing support by leaving messages on other users' pages [183] [184] The vandalism tag is now also reinserted by user:SrbIzLike. EurowikiJ 16:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is you who is acting against rules. I have informed several admins about your actions, and a few other users. I would seriously advise you to stop your disruptive behavior, and start following wiki rules, like discussing, not removing sourced material, etc. What you do will lead you nowhere. - Since EurowikiJ removes my comments from his talk page (and refuses to talk to other Serbian users too), I make this appeal to him here. Mostssa 16:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    EurowikiJ I see multiple reverts by you on Tourism in Croatia but not a single post from you on the talk page of the article. This is no way to conduct yourself.

    Mostssa start a rfc already! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EurowikiJ

    The user keeps removing sourced material, 90% of his edits are reverts, which he does almost never discussing it. He was warned that this is against wikipedia policies, and keeps removing the warning after it was explained to him by an admin that such behaviour is considered vandalism. Very disruptive users, inflamed many edit wars, where more reasonable Croatian users like Zmaj have for instance edited the paragraph about attacks on people from ex-Yugoslavia, he blanks the whole paragraph, despite the fact that it is well sourced (including UNHCR links, and both Croatian and Serbian newspaper articles). Next, he removes, completely without discussion, the whole paragraph about minefields, that was agreed as a compromise version by many users - CRoatian , Serbian and third party, on the page minefields and tourism section. He uses misleading edit summaries (saying that there factual inaccuracies, while there are none - especially strange since the thing is well sourced and not disputed by other Croatian editors). In short, a very inflamatory edit warrior that constantly reverts, removes warning and completely and blatantly disregards wikipedia policies that he is warned about. Also, removes comments of other users, which is not very civil. Mostssa 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mostssa (whose actions are described just before User:EurowikiJ) contributions can be described as at least tendentious, if not using some more harsh terms. User:EurowikiJ is not as used to wikipedia rules as Mostssa, but my question is following: are the rules more important than the content of articles? All wikipedia users should work together to make wikipedia better, but sometimes some wikipedia editors are so biased to one side so it can be even impossible to deny obvious fallacies (or irrelevant), and just blanking appropriate sentences is the right thing to do. SpeedyGonsales 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rasimkilic

    Rasimkilic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing Wikipedia articles, replacing content with spam links. (Blocked indefinitely.) - Mike Rosoft 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kasuro

    A very new user (less than 10 edits) keeps inserting his interpretations of Jimbo's actions and motivations at the Jimmy Wales page. I responded this morning to the points the boss himself had left behind at the talk page, and I though that they were valid and changed the page accordingly. I would like to solicit the reponse of other on this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems from the last comments at the talk page thatbhe has something against Jimbo, calling him a dictator. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask him to try improving the Criticism of Wikipedia article? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A mass production of sockpuppets?

    A new user has uploaded Image:Ds2f(2).png, and about 5 new users (they are still in the new user log as of this message) have put the image on their page. What does anyone make of this? It seems kind of bizarre to me.-- The ikiroid  18:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I see what he did thur. Apple Juice from Concentrate, Orange Juice from Concentrate, etc. Clever. Guy seems to know something about Wikipedia, though. Until the socks start being abusive or they get above 5-7, we should probably leave it be. Might want to ask the image uploader to tag the socks as his, though. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I disagree. If you look at his talkpage it's apparent that he has an abusive agenda with wikipedia, just look at his conversation with User:Mike Rosoft. He may be planning to use these accounts as meatpuppets to defend the deletion of the articles he created.-- The ikiroid  20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The image seems to violate the use of the Apple computers logo, isn't it a copyright violation? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The image seems to be clear copy vio and as such should be deleted. I recommend leaving the socks until a problem occurs. If it does, block them. If the user persists in this behavior, they should get an indef block as exhausting community patience. JoshuaZ 02:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm tagging the image for ifd under CV.-- The ikiroid  17:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. These are not sock puppets of me. Their good ol' friends of mine and I would like to ask you to remove the sock puppet tag from their user talk pages and the like. Thanks--AppleJuicefromConcentrate 21:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Images OK'd for speedy deletion

    AppleJuicefromConcentrate has given the go-ahead for us to delete the images.[185] They'll upload one that doesn't violate Fair Use later.-- The ikiroid  21:32, 28 

    May 2006 (UTC)

    Now about the sock puppets. I can honestly say that these are not sock puppets of me and are just some aquaintances of mine. So can you please remove the sock puppet tag thing from their user talks?--AppleJuicefromConcentrate 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert war on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach

    A user is erasing suspected puppets from the list, claiming that I added their names vindictively. This is not the case. I added users with single-digit contributions to Wikipedia (sometimes only one or two edits) whose only edits were to take sides in an ongoing dispute or to attempt to vote on AfD. I have explained this on the talk page for the list of suspected sock puppets, and reverted the list twice. I cannot revert again without violating 3RR. I would appreciate it if other admins could look into this and handle as they see fit. For the record, though I do not believe one needs to be an administrator in order to create and maintain such a list, I am in fact an administrator. --woggly 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it clearly says "suspected"-- if he has proof refuting your assertion of sockpuppetry, he should post it and perhaps strike the name of the user. The purpose of the page is to determine which ones are sockpuppets and should be blocked, after all, so discussion about whether they actually are is helpful. However, I don't think this user is doing this productively.--Sean Black 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nikitchenko linking to Wikipedia Review

    Nikitchenko is currently linking to Wikipedia Review via his user page, a forum lately known for getting Phil Sandifer harrassed by police in real life and other wacky hijinks. MONGO removed it once (after I suggested it to Tony Sidaway), Nikitchenko reverted (after coming off block), I reverted back, he's reverted me, and given that it is his userpage I'm not going to push him to the 3RR limit on this by myself. However, I do believe that Wikipedia should not be linking to this site from anywhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He also, apparently, is the reincarnation of indef-blocked User:AI: see here and here. Any reason not to indef-block User:Nikitchenko as well? FreplySpang 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also here . FreplySpang 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The link he provides is odd. Sometimes it goes directly to Hivemind while others get linked to Wikipedia Review (which in my opinion isn't quite as disgusting). In any case I regard the use of the link once told not to do so as pretty bad.
    I have blocked him for 48 hours for various attacks after his 12-hour block by MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (fuddlemark). I recommend an indefinite block. He's a hostile troll up to no good. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Daniel_Brandt#Redirected_to_wikipediareview for discussion of the redirection and note that wikipedia-watch is already in m:Spam blacklist because of this. Wikipedia Review has been blacklisted and unblacklisted a few times itself, but I do not think he was intentionally linking there given the context of the link. Kotepho 20:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just tried to indef block him, will just be over to make sure it takes.... The Land 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. Now where's that sockpuppet template ... The Land 19:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock drawer? :-) FreplySpang 20:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How disappointing. Chenko seemed civil on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza, he repeatedly apologized for accusing someone. I guess it goes to show you that you never know who's a sockpuppet.-- The ikiroid  20:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I figured he would continue to wish to display that link...I support the indefinite block based on that and the sock issue.--MONGO 20:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected User talk:Nikitchenko due to these two edits: [186] [187]. I reverted both. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh well he's been blocked to buggery. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I found the first diff very illuminating. I assumed that everyone who spent their free time clicking 'rollback' to ensure that information on the Internet was accurate would have no sex life whatsoever. Yet now I find that everyone is having sex with prostitutes of indiscriminate and indeterminate genders left right and centre. Why was I not informed? --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did User:AI go insane or something? Why did he turn against the encyclopedia? Was there an event that set him off? I remember a certain userbox debate made User:Blu Aardvark lose it.-- The ikiroid  02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AI was here to push a pro-Scientology POV. There was no event to "set him off", he was simply a bad user who made life on Wikipedia difficult enough that he had to be restricted from editing Scientology-related articles. Then he made legal threats, and was banned as a result ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption of new article Plasma Universe

    I've just started writing a new article on Nobel Prize winning scientist Hannes Alfvén's "Plasma Universe". I have been very careful to reference all my statments with verifiable citations. See my original draft[188] (just a few introductory paragraphs).

    Another user, user:ScienceApologist has begun disputing the article by repeatedly adding a quantity of unsubstantiated material, using biased non-neutral POV language[189]. Even aftering requesting citations, highlighting outright errors, and acknowledging a lack of understanding of the subject, I feel unable to expand the article past its original couple of paragraphs.

    ScienceApologist has previously stated that he think that the Plasma Universe subject "Plasma Cosmology" is junk[190] and labelling it as pseudoscience[191] (despite it all being peer reviewed). I suspect that his personal opinion is influencing his objectivity, as can be determined by the use of language added to the piece, and unsubstantiated information.

    I would like ScienceApologist banned from editing the article on the grounds of his disputive influence, and his acknowledged inexperience with subject (see the article Talk page[192]) --Iantresman 19:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The first cited ScienceApologist edit is a merge request, not "biased non-neutral POV language". The second and third seem to be considered opinions. The fourth is best read as a request for clarification. There is nothing bothersome here, and you are not making a good name for yourself by requesting that someone be banned for expressing opinions that differ from your opinions. --FOo 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, but that's not what I complained about. I mentioned the addition of unsubstantiated material, using biased non-neutral POV language. It is also against policy to express one's opinion in an article, which is what inverifiable material is. And the use of non-neutral language is against policy --Iantresman 11:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vlad III Dracula

    I put an "unsourced" tag on an enormous unreferenced section on this page, and started a discussion on it on the Talk page. User:Anittas claims that having a "references" section at the bottom of the page is all that's needed to indicate where this passage's references are from. But it seems to me that if something as large as the "nine anecdotes" section (which I have now removed) dominates a large portion of the article, it should be specifically sourced, unless the entire article comes from the one reference. Anittas said that *I* should put a footnote to it, but I don't have the reference, and it's not the responsibility of the person who's questioning the reference to have to do the work of looking it up. When I told him that I would remove it if a reference was not forthcoming, he threatened to "report" me, to whom, he didn't say. Anyway, I've removed the section. You can see what I took out by reviewing the article's edit history. If somebody wants to put it back, and references it, then I will be satisfied. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing at all wrong with removing unsourced info from an article. --InShaneee 00:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have given User:Zoe the proper reference, which is located at this link. --Candide, or Optimism 05:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, but that's a Word document. It's not exactly accessible to Wikipedia readers who don't have Microsoft Word installed. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And, I'm sorry, but where did you give me this reference? Not in the article, not on the Talk page, and not on my Talk page. This is the only place you have deigned to present this information. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for quasi-protection

    Hello, all: I've written up Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, a proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting. However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Commented. Please don't eat me alive. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just amend the current semiprotection policy and extend the timespan for new editors to 5 days from when they make their first edit and also make them have 50 substantive edits?--MONGO 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the above; there's really no need to have a separate form of protection for a current form of protection that could just be updated. joturner 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mediawiki doesn't record edit counts.Geni 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Before it was developed Mediawiki supported nothing. --pgk(talk) 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Hivemind" talk page edits

    Just thought someone would like to know about the following users activities. Wikifall (talk · contribs) Ansell Review my progress! 23:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I indefinitely blocked him.--MONGO 23:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User Khoikhoi's external page vandalism.

    User: Khoikhoi has been removing external links of coastal cities of Turkey. I checked and most links are not spam nor commercial. here are the pages with ext links removed. [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] Metb82 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you discussed it with him? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you haven't, it's not nice to accuse someone you're in a content dispute with of vandalism. --InShaneee 00:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    this is not a content dispute. ididnt warn him because he knows the rules better than me. Can anyone tell me why these links shouldnt be in wikipedia? it will be useful since i will choose the links according to that from now. take a look please Photos from Fethiye Pictures of the city İzmir Guide and Photo Album. Metb82 00:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This started when 82.72.49.135 (talk · contribs) added links to a website to dozens of articles. I discussed it with him/her, and they argued that there were other photo galleries that were in Turkish city articles. Therefore, I made an agreement with him/her that I would go through them and remove such links (most of which were on numerous articles, which gave me the idea that it was part of another spamming campaign) That was when Metb82 reverted all my edits. —Khoikhoi 00:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I already explained to the anon and Metb82 that they're welcome to upload the images, but spamming articles is not ok. —Khoikhoi 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    you didnt do an agreement with me, it was the person who mass added the links ithink. its ok that you fixed it, but why did you delete links such as i pasted above?Can you show me where spam is inthem? you erased hundreds of them Metb82 00:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about the anon. I'll re-add the ones you mentioned above. Most of the ones I removed were links to some of the same websites that were on 20-30 articles —Khoikhoi 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ok ill help you re add them. btw feel free to explain to me why it is considered spam if you decide to erase a link that i re add. Metb82 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that when you see a link such as "pbbase.com" on 10-20 different articles about Turkey, you know that perhaps a few months ago someone had spammed the articles, with the intent of promoting their website via Wikipedia. And that's not ok. —Khoikhoi 00:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ok ill keep that in mind but forexample pbase.com and some others have no commercial profit and they give detailed information for each town or city with exclusive pictures. Now if they really have unique info or pictures for a special town, i think it will be better to add them even for more than one place because it will be easier and important for the person who wants to have more information without having to browse the external link. Metb82 01:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but remember that these websites may not always be reliable sources of information. I agree that the good links should be on more than one page, but not 30 different articles. —Khoikhoi 01:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    == IP 74.229.231.123- Threats And Vandalism ==

    If you notice I have provided proof of my sources and this user keeps deleting them stating they are false and the user has not provided any sources that say otherwise to my post about Cingular Wireless. If you look at his talk page history you will see he has been wwarned for other Vandalism acts other than this. Also the user has made me feel threatened by stating on his talk page in reference to me " I dare you to try this face to face! " in reference to me warning him. This makes me feel like I am not secure and that he could track me down and do something which I am not sure of. I am not sure if I should call the police but I really want something done ASAP. Also if you not the history you will find it is the same person all the posts I am wanting him to be blocked for. This person has been blocked but for only 3 Hours and I feel this is not long enough because of the threats and vandalism he is causing Locust43 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility like that is obviously unnecessary, though I would advise you not to muse about calling the police - there's absolutely zero chance that you are physically threatened by this, and if you call the police you will be unable to edit Wikipedia per WP:NLT until the case is resolved. That said, I don't think the information you provided on Talk:Cingular Wireless qualifies as a reliable source. Edit summaries like "I work for Verizon and called them" make it look as if you're doing your own research, which isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. Verification must be repeatable, and phone calls don't qualify. Same for that data in the URL on the talk page - how can we consider it repeatable verification when most readers can't even understand what it's saying? As far as I can tell it's basically a primary source, which can't be used for this purpose either. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam is correct, not only with respect to the breathless incivility your message displays, but also with respect to the meaning of WP:RS and WP:V vis-à-vis your proposed contributions, and, more importantly, with respect to phoning the police (although I'm not certain that I agree that WP:NLT would act to prohibit your editing here further); one can be relatively certain that, though untoward, the comments of the anon to you are not criminal (or even civilly actionable), and I imagine that the best course of action at this point would be to stay cool and perhaps to try improving whatever article you find when following Special:Random (I certainly hope this won't be taking as patronizing paternalism; I've used this technique many times when I encounter challenging/exhausting situations here, and it's invariably ameliorated things). Joe 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have provided a correct Verizon PRL with the link and also cipped some out and posted it also. It is enough proof to meet the Wikipedia guidelines and it can't get any easier due to the format of the PRL. It is posted on the site making it in writing that can be proven. Locust43 02:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling around Svika Pick

    A while ago, Haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started trolling around the article Svika Pick. He thought it should read that the pop singer is famous for his love of minors. Many others disagreed and he started an edit war, violated 3RR and was banned (he is permanently banned from editing in his mother tongue). Once back he immediately opened a POV fork under the name Shira Manor (she is the girlfriend of the singer) with the same kind of phrases. Although several users protested I inserted a cleanup template and allowed anyone interested to clean up, improve the article and show why she would be notable. Haham hanuka deleted the cleanup message without explanations. There were no signs of notability so I AfDd. Everyone demanded to delete this article (not to merge) except for Haham hanuka. Nevertheless he took the liberty of closing the AfD himself claiming that there was no consensus. An Administrator closed the AfD as delete and another administrator warned him about his action. A third administrator warned him about rather rude incivility against me. The user then recreated the article (as a redirect) and reinserted his line in Svicka Pick once more, using again an uncivil edit summary when I removed, as if he hadn't just been warned. [208] I would appreciate if an administrator can take a look at this.

    Similar trolling occurs at many other articles. For example he finds it necessary to open a discussion about the father of a minor whose mom (an Israeli actress) is sometimes believed to be lesbian and keeps reinserting this point, he keeps inserting a neo-Nazi website as the first external link under Adolf Hitler and inserts npov, cleanup and other templates throughout Wikipedia without explaining his opinion on the talk pages. He recently added pictures of naked women to the article woman (wich is fine), but deleted such a picture from the article man.[209] "Not helpful" he explained to a complaint about vandalism.[210] The list is long. His regular edits are usually done before a robot can pick them up (e.g. deleting an empty line, interwiki, changing some foreign characters), but the damage he creates throughout Wikipedia is very time consuming to many good Wikipedians. The frequent warnings and blocks seem not to have any effect on him. gidonb 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with a problematic user

    I'd like some advice as to how to deal with User:NoseNuggets, a frequent editor to pages related to American sports. I am familiar with him through Current sports events, where his regular edits to the page have seriously lessened the quality of it. He consistently puts his edits in the past tense, italic type and casual style, even though he has been told several times that current-events pages should be in present tense, roman type and headline style. New editors to the page see his edits and follow his style rather than the correct one. I have been told NoseNuggets' edits to other pages are also of low quality. His edits to Current sports events have improved somewhat -- they are less SportsCenter-ish than they were before.

    In January, I created an RFC page to bring attention to NoseNuggets' conduct, but he more-or-less ignored it. I've also left messages on his talk page, to no effect. I tried posting a message to Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, but did not get any feedback. -- Mwalcoff 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think another RfC is in order; having partaken of the first RfC, I was altogether happy when NoseNuggets appeared to improve his editing style (although ostensibly not in response to the RfC), but I have since seen a devolution as well. Though he contributes valuably to several articles, his editing is disruptive and often creates a good deal of work for other users. I wonder if some uninvolved users might drop a note at his talk page to the effect that it'd be a good idea for him to participate in the RfC and learn from the comments of other editors; the substance of his contributions is generally very good, and it'd be bad for the project to lose him, but the fashion in which he contributes is altogether unencyclopedic, and he could be a much better editor were he to listen to the constructive criticism of others. Joe 03:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with the above. Nosenuggets' current events editing makes you wonder if he would prefer to be a sports reporter on his local TV news. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Sockpuppet

    205.188.117.72 (talk · contribs), an AOL IP clearly being used by banned user EddieSegoura, has changed Template:Sockpuppet a couple of times now like this, substituting the word "alias" for "sockpuppet". (EddieSegoura has an old history of revulsion at having accounts labeled as sockpuppets.) What's appropriate? Just keep reverting? Semi-protection? Full protection? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just realized that if I subst: all the sockpuppet tags on his pages, the motivation goes away. I'll do that; never mind. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In future, semi-protection will do; there aren't a lot of reasons for IPs to be editing highly used templates, as every change recaches thousands of pages. If they see spelling errors or other minor fixes, they can request it on the talk page. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gimme a hand

    Could someone give me a hand over at Jesse Jackson, please? I'm feeling moved toward intemperate language and action, and this would not do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours; see [211]. Jayjg (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned editor Lightbringer is back with more socks

    The editor Lightbringer, who has been banned by ArbCom, is back with more socks:

    Blocks would be appriciated. Thank you. WegianWarrior 07:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealt with. Thank you, drive through. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Would you like fries with your checkuser?" Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed with user "renaming" himself

    User:Mr.parks has moved his pages to User:Alastor Moody, which is, technically, not a used username. Help? I'm not sure what exacty to do, given that anyone at any time could create that real username. NSLE (T+C) at 07:45 UTC (2006-05-28)

    Side note: User is new on Wikipedia, broaching it with him could cause major confusion. He still edits from User:Mr.parks but signs as User:Alastor Moody. NSLE (T+C) at 07:48 UTC (2006-05-28)
    I had a situation like this not too long ago. Perhaps confirm with him that he does in fact want to change his username, then help him list it at Wikipedia:Changing usernames so it can be done officially. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can get him to confirm it somewhere that he does want to change, ping me and I'll change it; no need to confuse him with WP:CHU. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote 'his' "userpage",

    but not to confuse you, this is link is based on the user of User:Mr.parks although I later changed it to User:Alastor Moody.

    and

    This page has been renamed from "user:mr.parks" to "user:alastor moody".

    NSLE (T+C) at 08:12 UTC (2006-05-28)
    Well, it certainly sounds like he wants a rename, but I need something a bit firmer to go on. Has anyone left him a talk page message? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, per above concerns about confusing the user, but I guess it'll have to be done. NSLE (T+C) at 08:23 UTC (2006-05-28)
    Just ask him if that was his intent, and tell him he can answer you there. I'll keep an eye out. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As he's still editing from User:Mr.parks, I got rid of the redirect at User talk:Mr.parks to post the message. Posting it to his new username might not have worked, so a heads-up if you're watching his "new" page. NSLE (T+C) at 08:38 UTC (2006-05-28)
    Watching both, just in case. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He has replied to my talk page confirming. NSLE (T+C) at 10:05 UTC (2006-05-29)

    Cite tags as edit war

    I am having a lot of trouble editing these days because User:SynergeticMaggot is throwing almost insane numbers of {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) and [citation needed] tags on any page that is critical of Aleister Crowley. The worst problems have occurred on the [[Aleister Crowley][ page itself of course, and details aout the dispute can be seen on the talk page, but now he is asking for cites on the page Abramelin Oil, where he is threatening on the talk page to remove material that briefly mentions plant symbolism in natural magic by calling for cites -- to what i estimate to be 1,700 different socioogical studies of the magical practices from 250 different cultures, comprising the works of 1,500 authors. He has asked for cites rather than look up simple things. For instance, he asked for a cite to the book, chapter, and verse containing the quoted text of a recipe for Holy Oil in the Bible, which any editor could check at google if he sincerely wanted to IMPROVE Wikipedia. I am waaaay past assuming he is editing in good faith. Even articles that contain references to cited sources within a paragraph of text are being citation-tagged by him, resulting in TWO cites -- one in the text and the other in a footnote -- and then he goes back in and asks for a third and a fourth cite for each sentence in the pargraph. If the cites are not forthcoming, he deltes -- no, not the uncited sentence -- not the insufficiently cited parapgrah -- he deletes the entire sub-section! It is maddening, frustrating, and uncivil, and his intentions are obviously to censor any ngative comments about Aleister Crowley, as well as anything that i am writing hat even remotely alludes to Aleister Crowley. Meanwhile, other Crowleyites have called my edits "garbage" and "vandalism" and implied that i have fabricated false cites when, in actualiy, he was referring ANOTHER editor's cites (and they were not false, but were made to an edition of a book that these folks did not have). Then there are the specious claims that WP does not allow an author's own writings to be quoted as evidence that he is a racist, but that a second partty must be quoted to make the claim.Catherineyronwode 10:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the cite tags and locked the page, and now I'm going out. Review and undo invited. Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Karnei has now picked up the technique and applied it to a discussion on AfD: [212] and [213]. --woggly 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Killed those off. I'll go on a chainsaw rampage if someone readds them. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasnt threatening actually. Although I may challenge material as Wikipedia tells me. I gave a list of examples, it was voted on, and then removed (Aleister Crowley talk page). The user who wrote it (King Vegita), did not care. The complaining was from another editor (CAtherine). As for the Abramelin oil page, I never put cite tags on that article. I merely gave examples to someone who claimed that every statement on the article was perfectly cited (it wasnt and still isnt). Then the user Catherine began cursing at me, and Tom Harrison removed it. I also commented on this on his talk page (User_talk:Tom_harrison#Aleister_Crowley. I think i've been more than fare here, seeing as how I wished to discuss the matter, instead of having some sort of edit war. The fact of the matter is that there needs to be citation for alot of comments and statements on the Aleister Crowley page, and I've brought them up as talking point. And as usual, no one discusses anything until action is taken. So how long do I have to wait before I add fact tags and start removing information with no sources? Wikipedia:Citing sources tells me i really dont have to wait. So, I'm not understanding exactly what I'm doing wrong here. Zos 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, TomHarrison, you forgot the mention that you removed a personal attack. Here
    This is evidence of that Catherine has made no serious attempts at a compromise. I've given numerous examples of her not citing statements properly, and she continues to use verbal abuse in violation of wiki talk/ettiq and is uncivil. Here are some quote from the page:
    • ":*DUMB, STUPID MAGGOT"
    • "You bullshit flinging, scum-fucking idiot. "
    • "You are shit for brains and you seriously need to really get your ass busted for LYING ABOUT ME ON WIKIPEDIA.You are a troll, a vandal, and a degraded cretin. Piss on you for every rude and STUPID thing you have done here, and will do here, and will do for the rest of your miserable and loutish careeer as a Crowley apologist, and for the rest of your defective life. "
    • "Do what thou wilt, Maggot -- but don't you EVER take my name in vain agin, you despicable lying little rat-fuck. "
    The fact of the matter is, I never once accused her of anything, but fact checked her sources and asked (I'm not the only one asking here either) which book version she was using.
    I've tried to be as polite as possible, but I'm left with not knowing how to handle her on a talk page.
    I've also stated before that I don't have a bias to the issue, I've been more than willing to discuss anything thats added, and have even attempted to add material that may discredit the author. Zos 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, to correct myself, I have only put one cite tag on the Abramelin oil page. I just remembered this. Zos 00:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I don't wish to have to bother with this, I would like to point out point 2 of WP:V, one of the three overriding policies of of Wikipedia. "2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor."
    Further on, when it explains this policy: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}."
    When someone adds citation needed, on an uncited statement, they are already being nice. They could outright delete it right then and there, and no one would be allowed to touch them for it. If it needs to be readded, it should be done with a citation. Now, if they are kind enough to simply add {{fact}}, then how can you simply remove the requests for citations and protect the page? Let's look at policy here, you cannot simply decide you don't like the policy and decide to prevent WP:V from being enforced here.
    KV 00:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the page should not be protected, you can ask that it be unprotected at WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison Talk 01:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Catherine

    Catherine, is also attacking 999, and trying to delete everything she has put on wikipedia ([Here]), as well as accusing others of being a sock puppet. Zos 00:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked User:Catherineyronwode for twenty-four hours for personal attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 01:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JulianChan uploading copyrighted images with false licenses

    Request

    Moved from WP:AN to keep threads together. Jkelly 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an administrator please look into JulianChan's contributions. She is continuing a massive upload of copyrighted images despite being warned/asked to stop. --Hetar 19:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't look like the account has uploaded any more after the last warning. The user's image uploads appear to be a medium-sized mess... there are more than fifty images that need to be listed for deletion. Jkelly 20:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Image problems continue

    I would like to ask any admin to watch User:JulianChan's image uploading while so many uploads are claimed to be "free images", from www.gakei.com but the source website does not automatically grant copyright permission. The uploader has been warned at his/her talk page. If the problem does not stop, please consider blocking based on policies.--Jusjih 12:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reviewed all images uploaded by Special:Contribution/JulianChan. Unfortunately, all of them are from websites that have not given GFDL-compactible permissions but the uploader claimed all to be copyrighted with free use in error. These can pose major problems, so any admin, please take appropriate actions.--Jusjih 14:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the account until I get assurance from the user that they will stop. Not only were they continuing to upload copyright-infringing images after being warned not to and adding spurious "CopyrightedFreeUse" templates to those images, they had begun to revert the cleanup attempts and PUI templates. Jkelly 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user removed the block message I left without comment. Jkelly 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright

    I am speedying all gakei.com images per this notice on the website:

    "IMPORTANT: ALL bus photo images were taken by GAKEI, who retains the copyright privilege over them. You are NOT welcome to show any of them to the public in any form or by any means without his permission IN ADVANCE."

    Cleanup to follow... RadioKirk talk to me 18:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    ALL gakei.com images are gone, page cleanup to come. Meantime, four images uploaded from http://www.nwff.com.hk/ will need the assistance of someone more familiar with Copyright law than I (the website has no apparent copyright notice and I don't recall what is and is not assumed). I am unable to locate the source of a final image, even after I figured out how to search for it in Chinese. RadioKirk talk to me 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's pretty easy; Thanks to our brilliant law, we have no rights until we are given them by the owner. The exception is fair use; Refer to the current fair use templates we have for the general scenarios that they need to mold to and the general guidelines needing to be met. Basically, if the pictures are being used to show the subject of the picture, it's cool. Otherwise, we can't use them. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And, of course, fair use must be asserted, which these remaining five fail to do :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Annoying bot report.

    There is a bot that keeps pestering me about unsourced images, even when the source of the image has been provided. Eventually, an admin ends up deleting the images based on the bot's actions.

    Attempted efforts to contact Carnildo, the author of OrphanBot, has been met with silence.

    I need to have this bot off my ... case; How can it be stopped??? --Folajimi 17:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Humans tag images as unsourced, not the bot. It just tracks down tagged images and notifies you that they've been tagged. Also, while you have been correctly "pestered" over Image:Wibi Soerjadi.jpg (which has no source), other deleted images like Image:Patphelan.jpg and Image:Sen16.jpg were tagged by you as a "don't know", so they were recognised by the bot as lacking licensing data. It asked you to add it, but you didn't, so an admin deleted them. Johnleemk | Talk 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must be missing something here, because I included http://www.soerjadi.com/Wibi3.jpg as the source of the image... --Folajimi 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're missing is that you put the URL as a parameter to a template that doesn't accept such a parameter. It never rendered, so either a human user or a bot wouldn't see it on the Image Description Page. Jkelly 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about ? --Folajimi 20:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Never had any source information at all. Jkelly 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, because I distinctly recall including http://www.cineastentreff.de/teleschau/200548/4/200548_161418_2_012.jpg as the source of the image... --Folajimi 21:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the description page, you can check the history yourself, it was tagged as {{promotional}} with no source information at all. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I remember the URL was because I included it after the bot first complained about the source of the image, and included it in a note that I left on the bot owner's page.
    I'm not sure if this matters, but I noticed that the deletion log for the showed that it was deleted twice for some reason. --Folajimi 01:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal/religious attacks

    Politician818 is obviously having trouble learning from his/her past troubles on Wikipedia: 1, 2, 3

    I don't claim to have handled the situation spectacularly, but this user has a history of personal attacks and other violations, and thought it better to post here before it _really_ gets out of hand. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Politician818 seems to be operating under the mistaken impression that they are part of some sort of debating internet forum. I'd recommend gently encouraging them to avoid specualting about the intelligence of other contributors, read WP:NOR for the content dispute, and reminding them that we're supposed to be working on an encyclopedia here, not scoring ad hominem points in internet debating. Jkelly 18:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Funniest thing so far is him trying to insult me by accusing me of being Jesse Jackson. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Daz Sampson (talk · contribs)

    What should be done with this user? As far as I'm concerned they have an inappropriate username. Should they be blocked per the blocking policy? (By the way, I feel obligated to say that this user came to attention by remarking on my talk page that they are planning on filing an "offical report" against me because of my supposed removal of negative comments on the Daz Sampson talk page. This is partially why I am seeking advice rather than just blocking the user). --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be inclined to block, unless he can prove he is actually Daz Sampson. — FireFox 20:58, 28 May '06
    I've blocked him. See the first version of his userpage, which says "I am not that Daz Sampson" (he later added "or am I?" but I think the answer is still 'no'). By the way, if he actually was Daz Sampson how would he go about proving it? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    setting up a subpage of his website with a claim to the username would be one aproach.Geni 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this mean?

    Copied from the new user log:

    • 13:50, May 28, 2006 Dcarrasqueira created new account User:Pedro carras (Talk | contribs | block)

    Does that mean they created a puppet?-- The ikiroid  20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In essence, yes... but that's alright, unless they're acting maliciously. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the similar names, I wonder if perhaps Dcarrasqueira created an account for a family member, in which case it might not even be benign puppetry. FreplySpang 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-French sentiment deletion

    A paragraph from the article Anti-French sentiment in the United States has been deleted by User:Tocquevil. The paragraph is about "popular anti-French allegations" and lists several news events relating to France which Americans have objected to.

    He just deleted it with no explanation and no comment in the talk page. He doesn't seem to have a user page either; I'm not sure if he even exists, since user pages are normally deleted when a user leaves. I reverted it and it was deleted again. I believe this deletion is questionable, but if I keep restoring it it violates the 3RR. Exactly how can I handle putting the paragraph back?

    (I originally posted this in Village Pump and someone said I should go here instead.) Ken Arromdee 20:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the diff. It looks like a pretty reasonable edit to me. The paragraph was completely unsourced, and seems to be a part of some list designed to make a point. Then again, the whole article is much the same; if one were to start removing all of the original research, there wouldn't be much of anything left. Jkelly 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is already present in the Mumia Abu-Jamal page. It isn't sourced there, either, but it's a recent news event and deleting it for being unsourced strikes me as very disingenuous. I can Google for a random newspaper article about the subject and add it again with the source, but somehow I doubt that'll help.
    And of course the list is there to make a point. The point is "these are some things done by France which people don't like". That is, after all, what the section is about. It doesn't violate NPOV to give a list of reasons why people don't like France, in an article about people not liking France. (And since User:Tocquevil gave no reason why he was deleting the paragraph, any claims that he deleted it for NPOV or lack of sources are purely speculation.)
    But at any rate, that isn't the problem. The problem is that a user has repeatedly deleted a section from a controversial article with no comment and nothing on the article's talk page, where the user's contributions show that he has no user page, has only been around for two days and has edited nothing other than this article and a closely related one. This shouldn't be happening. Ken Arromdee 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking

    Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    14:58, 28 May 2006 Linuxbeak unblocked Blu Aardvark (contribs) (Unblocking, being mentored) --Was this discussed anywhere? Seems unwise considering Blu Aardvark's use of socks and agitating for disruption of wikipedia at WikipediaReview. Will Linuxbeak be mentoring his sockpuppets too? FeloniousMonk 22:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We have discussed the sockpuppet issue. He has acknowledged that yes, sockpuppets are not how you go doing things here. He acknowledges that he has made mistakes and he is apologetic. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Has he said he won't use socks? Has he disclosed all his other socks? Really this fellow has really relished pissing on other Wikipedians in the past. It would be nice to see if he has acknowledged this and resolved not to do it again. You know, publicly. I don't want to go three months down the line and see him chortling all over Wikipedia about being let back despite all the crap he unloaded on us. Most important, does he recognise the authority of the arbitration committee? --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But has the community discussed it? I suspect that there's not many who are familiar with his recent sentiments posted at WikipediaReview advocating disruption here that share your optimism. This should have been discussed first. FeloniousMonk 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and totally accept your take on this. Yes, this was not a community decision, but I have worked with previously hostile users in the past. I am asking you to trust me. You don't have to accept this, but I am asking for a grace period of one week. This has worked in the past, and I've produced favorable results. I understand your rationally guarded and skeptical stance, but I'm just asking for one week. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be easier to grant you that were his unblocking done with the community's knowledge and input beforehand. The way this was handled, and knowing his history, makes this all very suspect. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Community" is a weasel-word here, he was blocked, the involved parties agreed, and nobody outside complained. It's not like everyone got together and said "we will never ever let this guy come back". I think this is a fine opportunity for supervised mentoring. Ashibaka tock 22:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine that this provisional situation limits them to these named accounts and these named accounts only. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While I won't say that we should -not- use off-wiki material for on-wiki actions, we need to apply it everywhere or nowhere. Blu Aardvark's account on WikipediaReview could have been compromised, it could be a impersonator, we have no way of knowing because it is not tied to Wikipedia by technical or legal means. We need to look at his history on Wikipedia and the history of his confirmed sockpuppets (via CheckUser) and decide on that. If his socks are disruptive by no other means than the fact they exist to allow a banned user to return (IE: No voterigging, vandalism, etc), and some time has passed... Let's let him back. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I question the "success rate" that Linuxbeak mentions. A similar case is that of user:JarlaxleArtemis (JA). He had been in the middle of a second ArbCom case when he lashed out so horribly that he was immediately and permanently banned. Subsequently he contacted Linuxbeak and pleaded for a second chance, promising to do a number of things if allowed back. Linuxbeak (who had borne the brunt of JA's anger) generously allowed him back under a strict mentorship and based on JA's completion of several steps, including apologizing, undoing previous vandalism, etc. Once back, JA did none of the things required of him and after a short period of good behavior went back to behaviors that had led to his previous ArbCom cases. Linuxbeak had gotten busy with Wikimani, and two other appointed mentors had lost interest, which left JA unsupervised and he took advantage of it. Eventually I noticed the trouble, asked Linuxbeak for help, but he was still too busy to do anything, so I intervened, which took considerable time. I'd like to ask Linuxbeak how this mentorship will be handled differently from JA's in order to prevent a similar problem. -Will Beback 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And MARMOT ended up indefinitely blocked again? --pgk(talk) 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am appointing mentors that have the time to dedicate. Also, I will retain final say in mentorship-related matters such as veto power as to ensure that everything goes smoothly. The thing about Jarlaxle is that while he had rough moments, he eventually learned how to play Wiki. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is way too little information for us just to take it on your word. Who exactly are these mentors? Who'll be minding the minders? FeloniousMonk 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As one of the administrators involved with Blu Aardvark, I think it is a good idea that we offer him a shot at being a good Wikipedian again. I don't believe he is intrinsically a bad person, because he has shown some evidence in his Wikipedia career of being a decent Wikipedian; he has just made a series of recent bad judgements, and undertaken less-than-acceptable actions as a consequence. I don't believe that should make him persona non grata as regards Wikipedia, and thus I think we should offer him another go. So long as we watch his account carefully, and expeditiously block him again if he partakes in unacceptable behaviour, I see not a scrap of harm that could be caused by allowing him another chance provided his behaviour is watched assiduously. Yes, it is true this wasn't arrived at by direct consensus, but the present ban was in fact only arrived at via de facto consensus - as in, no dispute, versus a prior decision that a ban was necessary. After all, bans are meant to be merely a necessary mechanical means versus a punitive action, and so I see no reason why a last crack of redemption would be inappropriate. So as a consequence, I call on all Wikipedians to give this a go, as Linuxbeak suggests, and evaluate the results. We may well, of course, gain a possibly good Wikipedian as a consequence. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linuxbeak is completely trustworthy. He's one of our best people and I am sure he'll make a great job of this. Best of luck. Nothing I've said here is intended to she doubt on his judgement. It would be nice to see a bit more publicly what is going on, but in the end if Linuxbeak is prepared to block his protege in a case of serious problems, or at least not get in the way of normal administrative action without giving a full account of his interventions, that's okay. I'd love to see Blu Aardvark back again and not doing the troll thing. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would also like to point out that the other user previously unblocked and mentored, MARMOT, ended up exploiting vulnerabilities in the Mediawiki software and had to be banned, personally, by Jimbo Wales. I wish LB all the luck in the world with these two, but I sure hope they are watched more carefully than the others were, because neither of the two previous mentorships worked in the least. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Linuxbeak, does he even know he's been unblocked? He hasn't done anything.-- The ikiroid  23:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Though no one has mentioned it, User:Mistress Selina Kyle has also been unblocked as part of the same mentorship. -Will Beback 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief! This is risky stuff. -Tony Sidaway 00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blu Aardvark's encouragement of Amorrow to taunt MusicalLinguist is so completely misguided that I can never support his participation on Wikipedia. FloNight talk 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reblocked MSK because she was highly disruptive and made no good contributions. Linuxbeak, it's inappropriate of you to unblock such controversial users without discussion, and in particular given what's happened to Katefan0. These two users are staff members of Wikipedia Review, not ordinary posters. They have shaped the way the website has developed, and both have the power to make sure that the material that damages individuals isn't posted. It seems bizarre to respond to the recent serious attacks on Kelly, Phil, Tony, and Katefan0 by allowing the people in charge to post here again. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WikipediaReview is not Wikipedia. We have no way to verify if those users are the likewise named users of WikipediaReview; That their accounts have not been compromised if they are those members; What we have is this. Useful contributions to Wikipedia, if only minor. Months have passed; Let's unblock and see how things go. Worse case scenario, if incivility starts again, Special:Block is a click away. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be hard to find out if these users admit to being the users of the same name on WR, all we have ot do is ask them. Unless anyone has claimed that they are different then there's really no reason to assume that they aren't the same people. I assume that Linuxbeak, being a responsible person, has already discussed this with the users before he unblocked them, so he should be able to tell us if they deny being involved with WR. -Will Beback 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They've admitted they're the same people, so Avillia's raising that is a red herring. I ask that Linuxbeak come here and give a full explanation of what's been going on behind the scenes. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, I'm asking that you please trust me. Selina has made plenty of good contributions. Also, while I grieve what has happened to Katefan0 (I went into a mini-rage earlier today over it, which is something that never happens to me), that wasn't Wikipedia Review as a whole. That was Daniel Brandt. Selina has plenty of good edits, as well: see this. Also, Selina has asked to reply to this, so I would like to unblock her so that she can do so. I know that this might seem totally whacked, but you know me. I'm not going to do something if I don't think good can't come out of it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't the good edits that were the problem. Can you describe your conversations with these users? Did they acknowledge that what they did previously was wrong? What did they say thet led you to believe that their future behavior would be different from their past behavior? These two editors are owners/operators/moderators of WR, so they are responsible for its content. Have they made any comments about the realtionship of WR and WP? If we had more informaiton it'd be easier to understand this proposed arrangement. -Will Beback 00:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have to ask how many permabanned editors have come back to lead lives as productive editors vs. the near certainty of less disruption from those who are not unblocked. FeloniousMonk 00:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well let's see, there's Mike Garcia, that's all I can think of. —Khoikhoi 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike Garcia? Do you really consider him a "success"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayjg (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 May 2006.
    Compare his User:Michael account to his current one. All I'm saying is that it's the best example of a banned troll who has turned into a good user. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, absolutely. I talked to Blu Aardvark on IRC this afternoon. I approached him, saying that I know that there are problems with Wikipedia, and I'd like to help find solutions, etc. He and I had a very civil and intellegent conversation, and the subject of him being blocked came up. I mentioned that we have a mentorship process to handle things such as this. Blu Aardvark acknowledged that he had violated our policies and rules and that it was not appropriate for him to act as such. He also apologized. His acknowledgement and repentance for what he had done in the past is a sign that there's a possibility of being an active part of the community again. We have done this in the past (remember User:Michael?) and it has worked. Blu Aardvark has agreed to be civil. As far as Mistress Selina is concerned, I would like to direct your attention to User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Welcome_back. I would also like to make note that I informed Jimbo of this decision, to which he did not have any problems (he told me "good luck"). If I am given the chance to prove to you that these people can be let back in, I won't let you down. Just give me the chance. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blu Aardvark should have been making those representations to the community, not just one well-placed person. I'd want to see a comprehensive mea culpa from BA in which he lists all his sockpuppets and publicly renounces his contempt for our policies and values before I'd even consider giving him a chance. Too many intentional disruptions and hurtful personal attacks have come from a site he's significantly responsible for while under his watch. We lost one of our better admins last week due to harassment in real world because some of his friends on his site contacted her employer, and he did not even bother to speak up, much less intervene. He needs to account for that. We need more than your word here. FeloniousMonk 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LB, look, it has started already. See below: "what SlimVirgin is saying is blatantly false and just an attempt to smear me as some kind of vandal." These people don't acknowledge that they have done anything wrong. MSK has posted on WR that I pretend to be a Jew on Wikipedia because I am really a neo-Nazi trying to compile accurate lists of Jews to attack, or something (forgive me if I have it slightly wrong, but it's hard to paraphrase craziness). She has referred to that conspiracy theory very recently, so this isn't old news. How can you let someone like back onto Wikipedia? If she had been a great editor, and you were asking me to overlook eccentricity, then maybe I'd consider it. But she was never a good editor either, so how does this benefit Wikipedia or any of its editors? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the impression among its users that IRC is a substitute for Wikipedia community involvement. One IRC user apologizing to another IRC user has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If a user wants to make amends, let him or her do it in Wikipedia space, or else let us not count it (but by the same logic, let's also not count off-site comments at WR against them). -lethe talk + 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blu_Aardvark.27s_unblocking (at the bottom)

    To anyone reading this can you please point out this, because what SlimVirgin is saying is blatantly false and just an attempt to smear me as some kind of vandal (when I am definitely not):

    Also remind her that Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension is NOT policy and likely never will be, and even if it was you can't attack me just for helping run a forum where some other people have said nasty things - I myself usually are the voice of reason there...

    (Log posted with permission requested and accepted from Linuxbeak)

    <Linuxbeak> Well, it's really not that big of a deal.
    <Linuxbeak> I just find it kind of immature
    <rabbit2> the only real way to control what people say is to ban them or start censoring stuff
    <rabbit2> people act as tho just cos its on my forum its my opinion
    <rabbit2> not true, anyones allowed to post there
    <rabbit2> its just the people that post most make the forum basically, without the people it would just be me and an empty website o-o
    <Linuxbeak> Well, sure. I don't think that you necessarily hold any of those opinions except the ones that you post

    <rabbit2> --
    <rabbit2> Amorrow
    <rabbit2> I've been recieving a number of complaints about the apparent sexist tone of many of your posts. Now, it is not my desire to censor anyone, regardless of how distasteful I may find their beliefs or opinions to be, but I would like to ask you to consider toning it down a bit.
    <rabbit2> If we continue to recieve complaints of this nature, I may have to take other action, such as requiring you to post into a moderated queue. I really don't want to do this, so please try and watch what you post.
    <rabbit2> Thank you,
    <rabbit2> Blu Aardvark
    <rabbit2> --
    <rabbit2> just so you know
    <rabbit2> we are trying to clean up things, it's just hard -.-

    • Linuxbeak nods

    --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reposted from User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle. Kotepho 00:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blu Aardvark can explain this comment on WR. Tue 23rd May 2006, 8:39pm “Wanna have some fun, Amorrow? Since AnnH (MusicalLinguist) is having so much fun tracking, reverting, and blocking your edits, throw a wrench in the works. Hit recentchanges for a bit and revert a little vandalism. See if your good friend Ann reverts you because you are banned, or has the common sense that some edits, even those of "banned" users, do have merit after all.”[214] --FloNight talk 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking/contd

    I've moved the following so the discussion isn't split. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello everyone,

    I'm just letting people know that I'm going to try doing what I did with User:JarlaxleArtemis and User:MARMOT with two other users: User:Mistress Selina Kyle and User:Blu Aardvark. I have talked to both in length, and I believe that we can let them back in without too much fuss. They have agreed to seek help via mentorship in case of trouble, and I hope that some good can come out of this. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no opposition to this provided that the mentorship is handled appropriately. On the subject, are there any conditions of the unblock other than the mentorship? Ral315 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea, I have had experience with both and both (especially Blu Aardvark) have a good prospect of rehabilitation. Strike that, I support the unblocking and mentorship for Blu only. --bainer (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blu Aardvark's unblocking. -Will Beback 23:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm willing to help mentorship one of them. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your interest. Please talk to me via user talk, and we'll set you up. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Linuxbeak, please go to WP:AN/I and discuss this in full before you take any further action. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m totally flabbergasted that this is even being considered. --FloNight talk 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. It shows contempt for their victims. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reinstated Blu Aardvark's block until more information is provided and some consensus here is reached. This has been way too backroom for such a disrutive editor as Blu Aardvark. FeloniousMonk 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe this...why are we spending a second of anyone's time considering this. His track record is one of flipping out and heading south if things don't go his way. We don't owe him anymore chances, he has no inherent right to edit here and we've already wasted more than enough time on him. For us to even consider this there would need to be a lot more discussion and evidence that he's somehow changed his attitude, something that is not evident here or on WR... Rx StrangeLove 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both these unblocks have been okayed by Jimbo. Ashibaka tock 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a link for this? And when you say okayed do you mean not objected to, or positively supported? --pgk(talk) 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote Linuxbeak above I would also like to make note that I informed Jimbo of this decision, to which he did not have any problems (he told me "good luck"). Kotepho 00:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jimbo wants to approve the unblock, he'll tell us that himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a bad, bad idea, and we're going to regret it soon enough. Do you guys even remember what Blu Aardvark did? I can't think of many things to do that would've made it worse. He was using a combination of personal attacks, sockpuppetry, disruption, and oh yeah, anti-semitism. Why do we think that every user can be rehabilitated? Even assuming they can, why should we? It takes a lot of work and we're writing an encyclopedia here, not running a rehabilitation clinic. --Cyde↔Weys 00:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This all strikes me as very weird, and I have a few questions. Does anyone have valid statistics on how much time (how many edits?) admins spend actually creating encyclopedic content versus other activities? I get the impression (maybe in error) that vandal fighting has replaced encyclopedia creation as the number one task of admins. Is Wikipedia becoming one third encyclopedia making, one third free blog, one third free first person shooter game ("blocked a vandal; woohoo"). Does letting loose the caged fox make the fox hunt fun? Are people let back in because of it is good for building the encyclopedia or other reasons? Can't banned people make suggestions for improvements via e-mail to concerned persons who then implement them? What's the rush? Will waiting six months be a problem? Why? WAS 4.250 00:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can definitely testify to the fact that my encyclopedia writing has gone down since becoming an admin. A sad state of affairs. -lethe talk + 01:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Acitive admins who are active as admins do spend most of thier time dealing with vandalism or copyvios.Geni 00:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an example of what they have posted about me, except I'm censoring the last word. When I last checked, it was still there, even though other posters have objected. Both Blu Aardvark and MSK are staff there and are responsible for removing this kind of thing:
    "SV is a plane jane used up ho that can't earn even 1 euro for a blowjob so she gets on wikipedia where she can ban and harass others just to get wet and rub her scabby c***" [215]
    Linuxbeak, is this what you regard as fair comment, or a responsible way to run a discussion board? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How (s)he runs h(er/is) board is her buisness, if that is her board. Our concern, the concern of editors and administrators alike, is Wikipedia. Not if a gal has a Adam's Apple, not if the guy's a Stormfront donator. The question we must be asking ourselves is, "Will allowing Selina to return harm the project?" Not even the community, although this is something Selina will hopefully be better with, but the project. Her mainspace edits don't reflect vandalism or a intent to disrupt, she has clearly made amens and is intending to reform, and my opinion is to let her. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, now you're admitting they're the same editors? No more red herrings about them being other people with the same name? Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point us to something that backs this up: she has clearly made amens and is intending to reform Rx StrangeLove 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe we can do a one strike, they are gone indef again rule? Jaranda wat's sup 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We've done that already. I recall that MSK had several last chances. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or this from MSK just tonight: "I don't think SlimVirgin really is a Jew at all. really.." Does that sound like someone we want to give even more chances to?? [216] Rx StrangeLove 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mistress Selina Kyle's conspiracy theory about me is that I'm pretending to be a Jew on Wikipedia, but I'm really a neo-Nazi secretly compiling lists of Jews for Stormfront members to attack. Her evidence for this, and the reason I first came to her attention on WP, is that I defended some Muslim editors against their attacks. I'm not kidding. If we're going to unblock her, let's also unblock Cheesedreams, Lir, and Alberuni. Linuxbeak can open a mentoring school and do it in bulk for reduced rates. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blu Aardvark can explain this comment on WR. Tue 23rd May 2006, 8:39pm “Wanna have some fun, Amorrow? Since AnnH (MusicalLinguist) is having so much fun tracking, reverting, and blocking your edits, throw a wrench in the works. Hit recentchanges for a bit and revert a little vandalism. See if your good friend Ann reverts you because you are banned, or has the common sense that some edits, even those of "banned" users, do have merit after all.”[217] --FloNight talk 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blu Aardvark was a ok editor and Im willing to let him back with a apology and MSK I may be willing to give one last chance, it's not completely her fault about all those comments was made in the review site. I talked to MSK in IRC and she's willing to ban amorrow, Im not sure about the others though. Jaranda wat's sup 01:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This unblocking is outrageous. These are the creators of WR, who could easily have used their power to end the harassment of Katefan0, and all of the misongynistic etc. conversations on that board, yet they instead at best did nothing, and often egged the main miscreants on. I see no hint that they are in way reformed, nor deserving of being unblocked; nor do I see any sign that there is a consensus on Wikipedia for this unblocking. Let them clean up Wikipedia Review first, and undo the damage done to Katefan0; then there will be grounds for unblocking. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linuxbeak is a trusted member of the community and has been successful in reacclimating people to Wikipedia before. Maybe it won't work, but accounts can always be re-blocked if it doesn't. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do trust Linuxbeak. But I distrust Blu Aardvark even more. We shouldn't be wasting our time trying to rehabilitate users who were banned for some pretty serious infractions (Blu Aardvark, for instance, made over a dozen sockpuppets and went on an unmitigated spree of vandalism, in addition to all of the anti-semitic remarks). We're an encyclopedia, not a rehabilitation clinic. When someone has proven that their presence is not in the best interest of writing the encyclopedia they need to be gotten rid of, not given endless chances to reform themselves, in the mean time pissing off lots of productive users (who may end up leaving) and wasting lots of time. --Cyde↔Weys 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If this unblocking of rightfully blocked users continues, we as Wikipedians are going to have to ask ourselves: who do we value more, banned users or administrators? I know, personally, there's only so much I'm willing to put up with before I decide my efforts just aren't worth it. Blu Aardvark did and said some terrible, unforgivable things. What's next, are we going to give Rgulerdem a third chance? Unblock Willy on Wheels? Administrators are only going to put up with so many returns of banned users before we just decide ... eh ... what is up with this place that it values banned users more than us? Why bother? --Cyde↔Weys 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Especially since it's only a few days when the whole Katefan0 incident occured. Garion96 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It says above that, in fact, previous mentoring by Linuxbeak did not work out. Let Blu Aardvark and MSK remove all the personal attacks and defamation from WR; then they can ask to have their accounts here reinstated. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to comment on this, I've seen some people in this thread saying, "Ohh, their off-wiki actions aren't relevant ... you can't even prove it was them." To that I say: bullshit. Our editors and administrators have received some pretty bad harrassment as a result of things that "only" happened on Wikipedia Review. That negatively affects the writing of the encyclopedia, and it is relevant as a consideration in deciding whether or not these banned users should be allowed to return. --Cyde↔Weys 01:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You started by stating the suppositions of others, followed by calling it "bullshit", but then failed to explain WHY it was bullshit. Anyone can go to any message board, can register under Wikipedia editor's names, and can say all manner of things. (Not that I think that's the case here, but it DOES set a bad precedent.) Nevertheless, I think MSK is not as deliberately toxic to Wikipedia as Blu Aardvark. MSK deserves another chance, but Blu Aardvark should never, ever be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia ever again, IMHO. wikipediatrix 01:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blu Aardvark and MSK are the same people here as on Wikipedia Review. Period. End of story. --Cyde↔Weys 01:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Needless to say, I don't share your simplistic view of the matter. wikipediatrix 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, it's too simple to say that they are who they are, so it must be more complex. There's actually a huge global conspiracy of dozens of different people who are all logging in in sequence and impersonating these two users. That must be it. --Cyde↔Weys 05:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's out of his control to remove all of those comments, so that might be a little steep as a request, to make him go from being a two-bit troll to a patron saint.-- The ikiroid  01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying one has to be a patron saint not to call people c***s, not to publicize efforts to lose people their jobs, not to post private photographs, not to discuss people's appearances, not to be involved in reporting people to the police? No, you need to be a stable, decent human being who understands the difference between right and wrong. They are both staff. They run the website. MSK founded it. They could prevent that material from being posted if they wanted to. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you prove that MSK founded "Wikipedia Review"?? I'm pretty sure that it was founded by someone named "Igor" (who may or may not be a pseudonym of Daniel Brandt). wikipediatrix 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    MSK just banned amorrow from wikipedia review Jaranda wat's sup 01:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now how about Daniel Brandt, the guy who runs that despicable Hivemind stalker website? --Cyde↔Weys 01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We shouldn't pretend to ourselves (or some people shouldn't pretend to themselves) that these two editors are suddenly transformed into good company by banning a couple of other trolls or clearing a few posts from a board. That doesn't change the fact that both have been a time, resource and emotion and editor sink for a long time, particularly MSK, and that they have a nearly-uncontrollable disposition to making such comments and taking such actions in the first place. There is often the possibility of rehabilitating poor editors: but some people, like people in jail for life without parole, are simply unfixable, and unwanted. They tried editing here, couldn't cut it, many of our finest people tried to help them, and couldn't do it, because they simply didn't want to be helped. Wikipedia is not therapy, is not a rehabilitation clinic, is not infinitely forgiving, does not need every last one of their carefully-placed 'good' edits, and is not a suicide pact. To allow either of these users back without an extensive period of near-sainthood, would require Wikipedia to be all those things at once. -Splashtalk 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, it doesn't make sense to grant editing privileges back in response to administrative actions on another site which we have no control over. What would happen if, a week from now, MSK unblocked AMorrow, or if he started editing from another account name and that one wasn't blocked? Would we reinstate MSK's block here? It just doesn't seem workable to me. Blocking users on external sites can't be a condition for editing privileges here: only the user's own actions can be. And I haven't seen anything from these two editors that leads me to believe they're suddenly magically reformed. --Cyde↔Weys 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm in favour, in principle, of letting sane banned users back onto the site. Someone like amorrow is utterly unwelcome and must never be allowed back here; but those with some semblance of sanity (Selina, Blu Aardvark, Lir, perhaps) are theoretically capable of being good users. The question is, are they willing to do so? Selina wasn't so bad, before she was blocked, that I'd be unwilling to countenance her return. Blu Aardvark ... eee ... I'll leave that question to the ones he was antagonising. However, I suspect they aren't quite ready to be civil and behave themselves here. Selina's note, pasted above, is I think a good example of what we can expect from her and BA: nonsensical abuse and a complete unwillingness to work with us. I'd like to see some evidence that they won't behave as they have done on Wikipedia Review before they're allowed to return. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking over the history - neither of these users was banned by the ArbCom, Jimbo, or other 'binding' resolution. They were indefinitely blocked by individual admins and nobody chose to dispute that... until now. The only basis in blocking policy for an indefinite block without action by some sort of official party is the 'community ban'... which to date has meant that their actions were so bad that no admin is willing to unblock them. Since an admin is willing to unblock these two a community ban is not in place and reblocking them is inappropriate wheel-warring. If you want these people gone the proper course is appeal to the ArbCom or Jimbo.
    As to the actual individuals - I don't know much about Blu Aardvark so I won't comment. MSK was always a handful... we first met when I reverted a picture she added to the Jimmy Wales page, not of Jimbo, and she made disparaging remarks about my appearance... naturally we became fast friends. :] However, she also made some useful contributions and received some... questionable treatment from others. On this page, in the comments above, several admins have clearly violated civility and personal attack standards - as some did prior to her banishment. It becomes difficult to blame users for bad behaviour when those of us who are supposed to represent the best sometimes fall well short of the goal. Few people respond well to any sort of provocation... and MSK definitely isn't one of them. Do I expect all sunshine and flowers if she is let back? No... but if that were the standard there are some admins who'd be perma-banned too. I suspect that if MSK were given one 'free' incivil remark / personal attack / rule bending for every one directed at her she could never be blocked again... and that's a problem. We're not supposed to be harassing people to the point that they set up anti-Wiki sites. It may be 'easier' to kick 'problem' users around, but it is still wrong and we all end up paying for it. --CBDunkerson 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think CBDunkerson makes a very good point. This was a community ban which appears to no longer have community support. Lets attempt some good faith here, especially in Linuxbeak's direction -- he has indicated that this is for mentorship, not to set people loose. If there are any issues that arise, there will be eyes on the situation that can resolve those issues rather quickly. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What happens on WikipediaReview stays on WikipediaReview. We can't verify any comments made there, we can't verify any status made there. For all we know, Daniel Brandt is Jimbo using a proxy, because there is no way to verify evidence from WikipediaReview, or for that matter from off-wiki in general. It is obscene that we ask for censorship of a legitimate discussion forum that those in question cannot be verified to have control of. MSK and BluAardvark have both clearly made amends to the satisication of Linuxbeak, a bureaucrat... Jimbo can pretty easily be assumed to support it, as Linuxbeak hasn't been stripped of his bureaucratship for lying about Jimbo's stance on this issue... Let's give it a go. Worse case scenario, it does not take two minutes to revert all edits made and reblock. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're a contributor too, Avillia, and it isn't a legitimate discussion forum. It's a cesspit. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it's a tasty cesspit. Cocktail weenies and delectable sandwiches scattered about it, left like gingerbread crumbs for the unsuspecting child. I think. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "What happens on WikipediaReview stays on WikipediaReview." Wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. What happens on WikipediaReview spills over on Wikipedia and into real life all the time. Just ask Katefan0. Oh wait, you can't, because she's left... because of what happened on WikipediaReview. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of Brandt, damn it! It was DANIEL LESLIE BRANDT who did that to Katefan0. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is Mistress Selina Kyle and Blue Aardvark who are publicizing it, and without that public element, Brandt almost certainly wouldn't do it, because it's the publicity he craves. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be Brandt who placed the calls and harassed her employer, but it was Mistress Selina Kyle and Blue Aardvark who provided Brandt the message board to publish her personal details and left them up for all the world to see. I mean really, if the culpability in that relationship not clear to anyone, then they have no business offering amnesty. FeloniousMonk 04:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what happens on WR doesn't stay on WR...there are real world consequences and real consequences here. What's obscene is what happened to Katefan01 and doubly obscene that two accomplices to what happened to Katefan01 are being defended here. I'm sickened by this. Rx StrangeLove 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also sickened by it. Anyone who isn't has no place on Wikipedia, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What happens on WikipediaReview stays on WikipediaReview. I must say that the pure sophistry of this statement is mind-boggling: WikipediaReview isn't some J. Random BulletinBoard that happens to have some Wikipedia editors on it, its very reason for existence is Wikipedia, the alleged monitoring (snort) of what goes on here. And their track record (institutionally and of its members) is, to put it mildly, sufficiently disgusting to put them beyond granting them the slightest sliver of the benefit of the doubt. MSK and Blu Aardvark can't edit on Wikipedia? Too bad, so sad, actions have consequences. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What happens on WikipediaReview most definitely does not stay on WikipediaReview. I've had complete strangers contact me, offwiki, in a highly unpleasant manner, who could only possibly have "discovered" me through Wikipedia Review. My sins, apparantly, are that I am a Wikipedia administrator and a woman (horrors!) who took a strong stand against a disruptive user. Said disruptive user, after being blocked here, was welcomed with open arms at Wikipedia Review and allowed to spread toxic comments and lies to his heart's content. Nobody questioned any of his statements there: as long as he was virulently opposed to Wikipedia, he was embraced, and I was demonized. I am a person of some public stature in my country, and I make my living on my reputation. People who run a Google search on my real name, seeking professional credentials, will now find toxic comments and lies spread about me, under my real name, at various random-seeming websites across the web, solely because of the vengance of a disgruntled banned user. This is real world damage, and Wikipedia Review had a hand in it. If we block people for legal threats because legal threats deter people from editing and getting involved in Wikipedia, we should block people for other forms of real, offwiki damage. I do not stand for the opinion that the right to edit Wikipedia is an inalienable human right. --woggly 07:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Real world damage should be met by real world law suit. WAS 4.250 12:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Allow me to weigh in on this one. It seems MSK has given a negative impression on the Wikipedia community, however, I feel some people are not looking at both sides of the story. To begin with here, I don't recall there ever being an RFAr or a mentorship against MSK, it just started with Sean Black's indef block of her stating she was a "troll, virtually no positive contribs, etc. etc." Not to pick on Sean here, but that is just not true (as he is probably aware of at this point), and if I remember correctly his block went through a series of unblockings/re-lenghthenings/so on and so forth. I feel it could have been handled differently, as I'm sure others do too. I would like to direct your attention to [218]. If this helps at all, it proves that MSK has made some positve contributions, and can show friendliness at times. Also to note MSK does have AS although the general agreement between us is that AS is to not interfere with editing Wikipedia. Those points being said, I'm afraid it's too late for a mentorship to be done on this user. MSK is unique in that she tends to be a bit more bold than usual when it comes to editing which is an issue. I would also ask ALL admins to remain civil as best you can as I have sat behind and watched the aforementioned admins (I won't name names) try to deal with her, and I feel the civily line was crossed too many times. As for WR; as it relates directly to Wikipedia it does affect us. I would recommend further talks with MSK about your concerns and I'm sure she'll comply if at all she wants back in on Wikipedia. --Pilot|guy 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break for sanity's sake

    BARF...that's how sick this crap makes me...Wikipedia review...what a farce...I tried to register but I assume they didn't like my Yahoo mailing address...the only reason I wanted to register was to tell a few folks there to kiss my ass. The community decided just recently to block these two folks and, well, I guess they are really here now to make Wikipedia better...har-de-har-har.--MONGO 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not a fool. I’m not going to volunteer for an organization that welcomes people that are harassing me for protecting the organization. FloNight talk 04:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither. I've had enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the organization does not welcome these people; for my part, personally, I extend them no welcome whatsoever. I believe, as of this writing, both have been reblocked. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my point. Wikipedia review has several key players that were banned and all for good reasons...did someone get the impression that I am in favor of the unblocking of ardvark and mistress, as I am most definitely not.--MONGO 05:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to ditto FloNight here ... Wikipedia needs to choose which to value more: its contributors or banned users. We're not some damn experiment in rehabilitation, we're an encyclopedia. Giving rightfully banned editors unlimited chances to "rehabilitate" is just causing lots of disruption. Has rehabilitation ever actually worked? Let's look at some previous cases ... MARMOT, Jaraxle, Shultz ... this is not a good track record. It's not worth losing actually valuable contributors due to harrassment from returning indefinitely banned users. --Cyde↔Weys 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Cyde. The time and effort that this mediation will take could be more productively spent welcoming and grooming new editors who won't spend all of their time pissing over the encyclopedia. Nandesuka 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FloNight has this exactly right. I cannot understand why we are saying that enabling the treatment that Katefan0 and Musical Linguist have gotten is acceptable, and that people who do so are welcome here. Jkelly 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree as well. Credible, good faith volunteers here give significantly of their time and expertise, often to their detriment, to the project. And it is a sunk cost, they will never get it back. They should know that their efforts are appreciated and will not be squandered on experiments at resocializing and rehabilitation of known troublemakers who hold the community's values in contempt. FeloniousMonk 05:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. This whole debate is a microcosm of a much wider debate on justice and crime. Why do criminals get punished? To avenge their crimes? To discourage others from committing the same crime? To rehabilitate them? To protect the community from them? How should we balance the rights and welfare of the criminal against the rights and welfare of the victim? How should we determine that a criminal has been punished enough? People have been grappling with these questions for thousands of years. The probability of Wikipedia resolving them here is zero. We must abandon this arrogant quest to be the perfect rehabilitative justice system, and just do whatever will best get the encyclopaedia written. All things considered, it seems to me mind-numbingly obvious that the encyclopaedia will be better off if these people remain blocked. Snottygobble 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I added another section head above, to make editing a little more sane. Hope nobody minds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just piling on the bandwagon: Wikipedia is not a clinic for rehabilitating social incompetants. I'm sure an organization like Habitat for Humanity would not let someone continue to volunteer if they ignored instructions and were rude to other workers. Why should we be different? Isomorphic 05:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Point of information, please. Did Jimbo actually approve of, grant permission, or in any way give special authority for linuxbeak to unilaterally and silently overturn a community ban? Technically, linuxbeak is within his rights, I think, but socially, what an astoundingly maladroit move. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every admin has the authority to overturn a community ban. Community bans only last until an objection is raised, and LB objected. I don't have any strong opinion on this one (and I try to keep my head down on this sort of thing anyway), but LB didn't do anything wrong on a purely procedural level. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just a newbie admin but I oppose bringing back MSK or BA, mentorship or no, until they demonstrate they ARE the same people here and there (Avilla, stop with the red herrings, there are ways to prove someone the same in both places) and then repudiate what they've done on WR and explicitly and publicly apologise. I abhor wheel warring but absent an explicit order from Jimbo that came out and said exactly what the circumstances of their return was, I would reblock them both. Yes I trust linuxbeak but I think he's been bamboozled. This whole thing of what happens in one place doesn't affect another place has come up in other communities and it can destroy them. Too many valuable contributors have been damaged by WR for me to want any part of users that have any standing there. ++Lar: t/c 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Linuxbeak was acting entirely in good faith. His optimistic belief in the potential of MSK and Blu Aardvark to be positive contributors to Wikipedia is impressive. But, as we've seen here today/tonight, the cost of bringing them back is just too high. They've thoroughly burned their bridges. They are unwelcome in this project. FreplySpang 06:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FreplySrang has a point here- I don't think these are wise trade-offs. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The sickening irony would be that two editors, banned for posting personal attacks on wikipedia were allowed to return; and Katefan0, who embodied what a wikipedian could and should be, has been plucked from our midst. Let's stick a pin in this, and move on. The bans should remain in place. Mytwocents 06:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not dispute the good faith of Linuxbeak. What I dispute is the wisdom of his action. While no one individual editor can make or break this project, and thank goodness for that, the number of absolutely stellar editors who have withdrawn, or are thinking about it, is high. FloNight, SlimVirgin, KateFan0, Phaedriel... these are some of our very best. The cost is too high. Keep them banned. Whether there is cause to seek legal action against WR or whether that is a good idea is a different matter, but editing here is a privilege, not a right. This community has no need of the contributions of disruptive editors who agitate, foment trouble and trash good editors on other sites. As I said above, I have seen this before in other communities. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Before anyone gets all misty-eyed about Mistress Selina Kyle

    She was at it before her third day and never quit. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a question ... what even sparked this latest round of attempted rehabilitation? Was Linuxbeak approached by these two? Or did Linuxbeak do it upon his own initiative? If it was the former, I would be incredibly suspicious ... Cyde↔Weys 06:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The latter, I understand. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Linuxbeak claims he did the approaching, though his wording is extremely vague. See his explanation much much earlier in this thread

    "Yes, absolutely. I talked to Blu Aardvark on IRC this afternoon. I approached him, saying that I know that there are problems with Wikipedia, and I'd like to help find solutions, etc. He and I had a very civil and intellegent conversation, and the subject of him being blocked came up. I mentioned that we have a mentorship process to handle things such as this." -Linuxbeak

    I'd be much more comfortable with this whole thing if it had taken place on Wikipedia instead of IRC, so that we could see exactly what the candidates for unblocking have said. It does affect all of us, after all. -lethe talk + 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a response to what Blu Aardvark said on IRC ... I think Linuxbeak has been misled. Yeah, Blu Aardvark is capable of being civil in short doses. Once he gets into protracted discussions he just reverts to his same-old, same-old, though. I've interacted with Blu Aardvark before ... it started off civil and it ended with him getting kicked from #wikipedia after various anti-semitic remarks. Just because he says a few sentences that aren't incivil doesn't mean that he has rehabilitated. To stretch an analogy a bit ... we don't let murderers off scot-free just for saying they're sorry. --Cyde↔Weys 07:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I would agree with that. Furthermore, I note that it is not at all clear to me that this one has even done as much as say he was sorry. -lethe talk + 07:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the need to respond to this falsehood. I was never kicked from #wikipedia after making anti-semitic remarks. I do not even recall ever intereacting with you on IRC. Your repeats attempts to smear me as an anti-semite are quite offensive, blatantly false, and I would request an apology. --72.160.81.89 07:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blu Aarvark, why on earth would we let you back in, if you can still edit here? I note you made a comment at wikireview that you still log in to do some editing, but would prefer to use your old account. But you can create an account anytime you wish obviously.--MONGO 08:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo approving.

    Linuxbeak is not only a administrator, but a bureaucrat. He is one of the most trusted members of Wikipedia, and I hold extreme doubt that he would lie about this endorsement for these two and risk his sysop status in the process. If nothing else, let's WP:AGF for this situation and assume that he has Jimbo's blessing until otherwise noted. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 07:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I trust Linuxbeak. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to disagree with him. And I don't care if he has Jimbo's blessing or not; if he does, it may be a point in MSK and BA's favour, but is certainly not the end of any discussion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else find it kind of ironic that Avillia is commenting on this issue? Avillia, of course, is another user who did some pretty bad things, was indefinitely blocked, and was then given a second chance. --Cyde↔Weys 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all. The obvious rejoinder would be: he should know. Why shouldn't someone like Avillia be arguing for giving others a second chance? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did Jimbo approve of this by the way? All I see above is that he told Linuxbeak "good luck". While Jimbo doesn't usually speak with sarcasm, that phrase can be interpreted several ways. --bainer (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust bureaucrts to do bureaucrat things. Promote admins, rename users. When I look at RFB I don't support them to give blanket power just because they are "trusted". --pgk(talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone let me know on my talk page when this blows over? I'm dewatchlisting AN/I so I don't get dragged into this soul-consuming morass. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I know little of this case and make no comment on it. However I note that some users against Linuxbeak's unblock are the same users who have treated me rudely, poorly and with their versions of wikijustice.Mccready 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure you'd fit quite well on Wikipedia review. El_C 09:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C, snide remarks to Mccready are not going to help the situation. We want him to stay on Wikipedia and be a good editor. Please do not taunt him. FloNight talk 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now it looks like SlimVirgin and FloNight are leaving wikipedia because of this. I feel so guilty Jaranda wat's sup 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not your fault, Aranda. --Pilot|guy 16:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not party to any discussion above, contained in diffirent sub-sections. But, the discussion, comments are observations appear really amazing to me - yes, an amazing way to build the sum total of human knowledge. I am sorry that I could not refrain myself from opening my mind and heart. Respectful regards to all! --Bhadani 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me get this straight, a couple of banned editors who devote large segments of their time to another website created to attack Wikipedia and Wikipedians are being unilaterally unbanned by one admin against community consensus? What on earth for? How is this a positive move for the project, particularly since the net result appears to be the driving away of long-time editors who have greatly contributed to WP? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if anyone has already said it, because this conversation is a confusing mess, but I believe SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) left wikipedia. She made her last edit here, cleared and protected her userpage, and has done nothing since.-- The ikiroid  19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FloNight (talk · contribs) and Phaedriel (talk · contribs) have done the same. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Phaedriel left before the unblocking of Aardvark and Mistress...right after Katefan0 left and she saw that those toilet plungers at WR started harping in on her.--MONGO 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a big loss for en.wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, Linuxbeak, I hope you're satisfied. SlimVirgin has left? Please, please, please discuss such things with the community before taking such unilateral action in future. Mentorship has failed repeatedly. Mike Garcia is repeatedly blocked for 3RR violations, and I begin to wonder if he isn't Johnny Vandal (after all, who else has such a hatred of Hephaestos?) And whoever tries to claim that what happens on Wikipedia Review stays on Wikipedia Review needs to talk to Phil Sandifer. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIVIL. Additionally, he did post on Central AN and received support prior. See the moved segment above. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, really? From the logs, he announced it at 22:03, having unblocked at 21:59. So, hooey. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, whoa whoa. Time out. "Wow, Linuxbeak, I hope you're satisfied." That hurts, Zoe. Are you trying to place SlimVirgin's leaving on me? It's not like I go to my secret underground lair with a armful of plans marked "How to screw people over". For your information this was supposed to be a way for us to eliminate enemies by making friends. I notice that at least one other person has blamed SlimVirgin's dramatic departure on me and has called for me to apologize. Uh, no. I'm not going to apologize for attempting to extend an olive branch, mend broken bridges and assume good faith, and I'm not going to apologize for SlimVirgin's departure because she's the one who left in a huff instead of sticking around and participating in further debate. Did I do something out of process? I might have, but I honestly don't know. Some say I have, some say I haven't. If I have, then please accept my sincere and humble apologies for not following established process. However, if you're going to blame SlimVirgin's actions on my attempt to do something that I saw as helpful and supportive, forget it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Linuxbeak, do you understand that your unblocking gives the message that it is okay to torment and abuse editors? Do you understand that your unblocking makes it clear that no editors here can feel at all supported when personally attacked? Jkelly 23:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Although I would not have unblocked those two we cannot blame Linuxbeak for anyone's actions but his own. Slimvirgin is a grownup. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that anything about my statement, or even Zoe's, infantalises any of the editors who have departed over this. Linuxbeak has made it clear that an editor here does not have any reasonable expectation that abusive editors who enable stalking and harassment are unwelcome. Not discussing the matter beforehand with those editors who have been the target of months worth of harassment is disrespectful. I agree with FloNight; that makes it a perfectly reasonable decision to not want to invest further in the project. The unblocking is not contextless. Jkelly 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that Linuxbeak does not seem to understand the process for unblocking blocked users, as he says he doesn't know if he acted out of process. I'm not sure which process he thought he was using. -Will Beback 23:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people seem to think that I violated process by unblocking someone without discussing it first. Well, did I violate process? Tell me what I did wrong. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't violate process. You were perfectly within your rights, technically, to do what you did. What you did was violate the community; I doubt it was your intent, but the effect was an act of contempt for the community. Why couldn't you have at least talked first with the people who discussed and agreed with the bans? Do you have so little respect for their ability to make intelligent, informed decisions? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but i do not agree that it is perfectly reasonable. Linuxbeak's actions have been widely condemned by the community. To leave because of the actions of one admin who does not have the support of the rest of the community is silly. Linuxbeak does not speak for me or you or anyone else for that matter. If people leave because one person does something they do not like, then the are being altogether too fragile. Linuxbeak is not responsible for anyone leaving - they are. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's that simple. In this thread alone, I see support for Linuxbeak's actions from NicolasTurnbull, Ashibaka, Avillia, Ral315, bainer, Jaranda, Jareth, wikipediatrix, CBDunkerson Pilotguy, and A Man in Black, plus the second-hand rumors of support from Jimbo himself. Were I a victim of harrassment from these people, I don't think I'd see wide condemnation here. For the record, I join the voices of those who say this was just a dumb thing to do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Linuxbeak, I don't doubt you meant well; this can't be the outcome you intended. You hoped to eliminate enemies by making friends. I'm sure you still mean well; What do you hope to accomplish this time, with your "sincere and humble" non-apology? Is it supposed to make it easier for FloNight or SlimVirgin to come back, or to reassure others who are on the fence, or get some part of the encyclopedia written, or what? Sure, you are not solely responsible for their leaving. Others have left recently as well. It's not all on you that the project has trouble retaining good volunteers, and trouble getting rid of jerks. But your actions aggravated both problems, and some here support your actions. That probably won't reassure those who have been victims of harassment. I can't see what blaming SlimVirgin for leaving is supposed to do. You screwed up big time, and you, and a chunk of the community, seem oblivious to it. I would have hoped you would recognize your mistake, and work to correct it. It's unfortunate that you made self-justification a priority, and doubly unfortunate that you chose to blame others. Tom Harrison Talk 00:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not going to get involved in this, but Slim's reaction makes it necessary. If for no better reason than keeping Slim here, I strongly favor indef blocks of Selina and Ardvark. Even if Selina and Arvark's only edits were their few productive ones, Slim would still be orders of magnitude more useful to the project. Unblocking these two users is simply ridiculous. Given the very low probability that rehabilitation will work, the cost of unblocking them is way too high. JoshuaZ 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I didn't notice earlier, but Flo has reacted as Slim has. To even consider losing two of our most useful editors over this nonsense is, I don't know what. I'm appalled and don't have the words to express it. JoshuaZ 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget Phaedriel. -lethe talk + 20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Phaedriel was mainly because of Brandt Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the policy mentioned in Wikipedia:Banning policy that if even a single admin is willing to unblock, then there does not exist a community consensus is far too strong a requirement for consensus, as the above discussion shows. I have proposed it be changed here. -lethe talk + 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the blocking policy, note that it also requires an unblocking admin to discuss "the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate." I think if that had been done in this case there would have been a different outcome. -Will Beback 20:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason I cannot find that phrase on the policy page. -lethe talk + 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's here: WP:BP#If_you_disagree_with_a_block. Note that's the blocking (as opposed to banning) policy. Petros471 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Well, that mitigates somewhat the need to change the policy, instead, let's just ask Linuxbeak to pay a little more attention to policy. Though I still think the offending sentence is potentially harmful. -lethe talk + 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We need two indef blocks

    Straight from the new user log:

    • 18:02, May 28, 2006 Charlies ballsack created new account User:Scrotum sam (Talk | contribs | block)

    Someone has to block both of them.-- The ikiroid  00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Add User:Half Baked to the list.-- The ikiroid  00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the first two; I'm inclined to leave User:Half Baked alone pending any contribs. RadioKirk talk to me 00:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible wikistalking

    I had never encountered Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before I voted against his nomination on an article that he nominated for deletion. Today I found out that he has mysteriously either nominated for deletion or added a cleanup tag to nearly every single article that I created that was listed on my userpage. Most of these were small articles with only a few links from other articles. I find this a strange coincidence, especially since for all of the articles that he added cleanup tags, he had provided no reason for them either in the edit summary or the article's userpage. When I engaged him on his talk page he accused me of in fact wikistalking him, even though every single article that we both have edited, I was the first one to edit. Also as you can see on my user talk page, [219], he basically admitted that he found all of the articles by looking at my userpage, but he said that was somehow not wikistalking. I find this whole situation rather infuriating.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another bad username

    Chucknorrisisgod (talk · contribs) should probably be blocked as a username violation.-- The ikiroid  01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dead. -Splashtalk 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chuck Norris does username blocks before the account's even registered. How do you like them apples? robchurch | talk 00:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Les Aspin has Seignethaler type of vandalism

    I found an unsubstantiated allegation on Les Aspin's bio. It accuses him of shoplifting while he was Clinton SecDef. There was no source. I removed it per policy. The tidbit was added by an anonymous IP in March. I have not been able to verify it so I removed it. It is disturbing that it could have been up there for that long (and with many subsequent edits) without challenge. I am not sure if Wikipedia Administrators can take any actions that would help cleanse the mirror caches or Goolge searches.

    Diffs are here. --Tbeatty 00:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An administrator has apparently deleted the 68.14.190.169 contributions. This is actually worse since it makes it seem another editor is actually responsible for the edits. Now the diffs are here but the edit that actually added the material is now deleted. --Tbeatty 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumfun

    I don't know if there's a speedy deletion criteria for pages created purely for shock value, but Bumfun probably belongs on that list. Basically, the page is only there to show a large picture of two people having anal sex. The image itself is probably a copyvio from some porn site. Two users, User:Meinbratwurst and User:Analcrusader, are responsible for this page. I resized the image down to 4 pixels so it's far less intrusive, but I still think someone should delete the page, protect it, and enforce whatever can be enforced against the creator(s). --Elkman 04:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted the article as nonsense and protected against re-creation. -- Longhair 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I nuked the image as a copyright violation. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Now, I just need to go and use the Brain Brillo. --Elkman 05:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alienus

    I'm not sure if there is a violation here but Alienus has recently (or at least since I've come back to wikipedia) been posting comments on talk pages of articles such as Homosexuality and Abortion for different articles loosely related such as Homosexual Agenda and Pro-choice. I believe this is in an attempt to tip the scales of the article away from a 50-50 balance to his POV, however I can't prove this. He has also accused me of making POV hot-spots (even though I am trying to maintain a version preceding my arrival at the article and am helping preserve valid points). Thanks, Chooserr 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the nature of these comments?
    KV 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The comments are usually pretty neutral "Editors of this article may be interested in the events on pro-choice." however they are posted on articles where (I believe) he feels he'd find a large group of supporters. I think of it as a form of wheel warring myself, but I'm not positive about what the rules say. Chooserr 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. My name is Alienus and Chooserr has chosen to report my actions as an incident instead of talking to me about them. This lack of good faith is disheartening, but the content of his accusations is even worse.
    In any case, I'm definitely "guilty" of posting messages on main articles about activity on related articles. For amusement, compare this with Chooserr's practice of sending messages to editors who he hopes will be sympathetic (such as [220]]).
    I think it's entirely reasonable to alert editors to changes that might interest them. If they decide to follow the link, they can then decide for themselves just how to respond, regardless of anything I suggest (and, actually, I rarely suggest anything). Note that this is not any sort of vote-stacking, both because there is no voting involved and because I'm inviting everyone equally.
    In short, I'm not violating either the spirit or letter of Wikirules. If anything, I'm doing a good deed by getting more editors involved in these controversial articles to avoid edit-warring.
    Anyhow, I think this whole thing is a non-issue that could have been entirely avoided if Chooserr had assumed good faith and simply messaged me directly. Sorry for the trouble he's caused you. 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Alienus,

    I haven't sent any messages looking for support since I got back, and really don't intend to, however even if I am guilty (these things hang around a long time) that doesn't mean you have to do the same thing...does it? Any way, since you want me to message you directly I will. Chooserr 06:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh Aleinus,

    That isn't requesting support (he'd already voted against me) I just wanted to make sure that he knew about the subject at hand because it is possible that he didn't look at the talk page recently. Also I hardly expected support from Dcovenent(?). Chooserr 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The link I posted, which shows an example of you recruiting editors, is less than 24 hours old. In any case, why are we talking here? We both have Talk pages, as do all the articles. Are you intentionally trying to abuse Wikipedia processes to make a WP:POINT or is this merely the unintentional result? Al 07:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the title of the section as it looks very much like a point is trying to be made. As Al says - go to your talk pages. Sophia 07:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:£

    Spreading slander on Estonia and Estonian politics: creating article Eesti Iseseisvuspartei (contains obviously erraneous information and libel on Estonian Independence Party; I've asked for deletion); libel on Pro Patria Union page [221]. This is surely not a content dispute, but an obvious attempt to falsify information. --Constanz - Talk 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now the slander article has been deleted by an admin; however, the vandalistic user has not been warned yet. I think that given the user's previous 'contributions', a block would still be an option.--Constanz - Talk 09:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another addition by the user concerned: [222]. I'll report vandalism in progress.

    Reiki vandal and suspected sock puppet

    User 58.178.137.47 vandalised Reiki with this edit. Given the history of edits, can someone please check if the account is a sockpuppet. Thanks. Mccready 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mcready. You are most unhelpful. Why don't you try talking to me? You bet I know my way around Wikipedia. Your behaviour is borderline breaching WP:OWN on that article. You are making the mistake of thinking you couldn't possibly be in the minority when actually, you are in the minority. Your edits are unwanted. Get over yourself. I am nobodies sockpuppet. I am simply anonymous. 58.178.137.47 11:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Cyr

    Relentlessly slanders me and posts baseless, bad faith, tags on my userpage (user check would easily reveal proof to the contrary of slander!)Pantherarosa 09:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jamalik

    Could an admin please use the rollback button on Jamalik's edits? He/she has been spamming articles on Bollywood actresses with ads for a commercial website. I'd rather not have to revert these one by one. He/she has been warned. Zora 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh bother. He/she/it was also spamming the same site as 202.38.62.8. Any edits made by that anonIP on the 29th need to be rolled back too. It hit a lot of articles. Zora 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. --pgk(talk) 10:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tavvkar.

    "Tavvkar." (contribs) is clearly imitating Tawker. - WP:BP#Usernames. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmph. Beat me to it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Augh

    Pat8722 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been editing my UT page for about a month now, and he keeps making threats to desysop me. Why? Well, about a month ago, I blocked him for 24 hours for making six reverts in twenty-four and a half hours (but never 4 in 24) at Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He has since been saying that I've violated policy by blocking him, that he has a right to three reverts a day, and further he has been asking me what the procedure is to desysop me. I've directed him to the policy page numerous times, but he does not seem to understand the intent of the 3RR. I'm at my last straw with him, and I can't think of anything more I can do to convivnce him of the intent of the 3RR. I have also not paid any attention to the Libertarianism article, so I have no idea if he's still been at it there. Regardless, I need some help here. User talk:BorgHunter is where the problem is, and he also has a RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been there. If he keeps going on and on and refusing to drop it or to take it elsewhere, and you've told him all you can, then I suggest saying "I've told you all I can, I don't think this discussion is productive, I will not be continuing it". The 3RR block was definitely justified. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    External Link Spam

    I am requesting that the external link [223] be blacklisted (or whatever it takes to block the whole domain) because it is being spammed on a number of cases by a number of IPs. I am including some links to the IPs that are spamming them and every single edit done by these users is to spam these forums. 200.55.64.219 (talk · contribs · logs), 200.55.75.96 (talk · contribs · logs), 200.55.87.45 (talk · contribs · logs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirGrant (talk • contribs) .

    Zeq

    Zeq (talk · contribs · logs) is vandalizing Israeli apartheid (phrase) for POV reasons removing documented information he doesn't like (ie information on what proponents of the phrase say). Homey 18:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a content dispute to me. --Cyde↔Weys 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He's repeatedly blanked a large part of the article for POV reasons. Homey 19:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, one must consider some previous edits.Dirty Chuck 19:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you read the talk page of the article. There is a good faith dispute on the source Homey used and there is clear indication that he pushed his POV using "facts" that have been shown to be wrong [224] (an edit by 3rd part User:Tewfik)
    • Homey also edit war with several other users on this article and misuse his admin power:
    1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Homeontherange_reported_by_User:PinchasC
    2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Homeontherange_reported_by_User:Pecher

    Zeq 19:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone has breached WP:3RR, please report it at WP:AN/3RR. If this is an attempt to get some outside opinion on a dispute, please use WP:RFC. Jkelly 19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on the phrase Israeli apartheid, one section is on what proponents of the phrase argue, another is on what critics of the phrase retort. Zeq keeps deleting the first section leaving the second thus POV'ing and unbalancing the article. Homey 19:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am glad to hear that you acknowledge it is a good faith content dispute(and not vandalism as you have claimed) . What you think of as NPOV is to me looks like POV and what you think as POV I think is NPOV. Sounds like some dispute resolution maybe an WP:RFC is a good idea. We are not going to resolve this conetnt dispute on the ANI board or by editwar and blocks like you tried too ..... Zeq 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a matter of content dispute. Not the other way around.What I'm trying to say is that consideration and trust are your allies here.Dirty Chuck 19:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeatedly blanking a section of the article you don't like is vandalism. If you think you can find a better source for the material on proponents of the phrase why don't you find some? That would be the good faith thing to do. Instead you blank a section on proponents of the term leaving only the section on opponents of the term. You also make other very POV changes like changing "analogy" to "false analogy" and changing "phrase" to "propaganda phrase" thus trying to rewrite the article as a POV attack. Homey 19:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This content dispute has been addressed on the article talk page (before Homey blocked me). This discussion is moved back there. Zeq 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious username

    Willie van der vyver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Isn't that mean "Willy on Wheels"? I'm not sure, but it looks kind of suspicious.-- The ikiroid  19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, a user account created, but no edits so far. I think we can expect a few actions happening at or after the four day mark. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or alternatively, we can just do a username block. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But what does it mean??-- The ikiroid  19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't mean anything, "van der vyver" is a normal Dutch surname (well, a bit Americanized, but recognizable). I wouldn't block it. Eugene van der Pijll 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; assume good faith on this one; Van Der Vyver is a common Dutch/Afrikaans surname (try googling it). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I don't know any Dutch or German, and I figured that "Vyver" meant "Wheels" or something. Though I now guess it's closer to "Pfeiffer". It's my fault.-- The ikiroid  19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem ... I wish Google had Dutch translation utility but they don't, yet. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    38.100.80.101

    This user(ip) has vandalized my userpage 3 times and 2 other users have vandalized it the same way also; they might be the same person. It would be a great help if someone could ban him from wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Earth KING (talk • contribs) .


    I have left an additional warning at the IP's talk page. Earth KING, it would help if you didn't respond to the vandalism so virulently. Vandals get less enjoyment and stop quicker if they don't seem to be successfully provoking their targets. JoshuaZ 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sick rascist

    Can someone please stop this rascist user Alexr88, [225], IMO he should be permanently blocked for this disgusting rascism, SqueakBox 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is disgusting racism, but let's just take it easy. I don't think he deserves a block, but you should leave a warning on his talk page. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left my two cents. The user has a history of good-faith contributions and I couldn't find any previous warnings... maybe his little brother got onto the computer. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the user's other contributions; they all seem to be focused on a relatively unknown area of Serbia called "Zrenjanin"- the recent edit appears to the be first offensive thing ever posted by this user. It's also a very strange edit, considering his user contribution history. If anything, I might wager a guess that someone else may have gotten ahold of the account. I don't support a block at the time, but I do recommend watching the user a little more closely. -- Daniel Davis 22:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's history isn't invariably constructive, but certainly is on the whole. Assuming good faith, I'm inclined to agree with Daniel and Sam that this edit may have been made by someone on Alexr's computer; even were the comment to have been made by the user, though, I don't think it's blockable (and surely not indef blockable), as its not particularly disruptive and is isolated. As Mr. Lefty says, though, a talk page note (phrased more decorously than that which SqueakBox left) is surely in order; if he didn't make the offending edit, he'll surely be glad to know that he ought to be more careful about signing out when on a computer accessible to others who might be inclined to vandalize. Joe 22:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool. It may be that he is from Eastern Europe and doesn't understand that people react to rascism very differently in the English speaking world (cos if he was English/American I would oppose a second chance), I hope my message got the point across that this sort of behaviour isn't acceptable, SqueakBox 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Similarly, though, I hope that the messages of others who responded conveyed the idea that, even were this user to be a native English speaker and to have admitted to making the comment, a block, to say nothing of an indefinite block, would likely be inappropriate in the absence of other disruption. Joe 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ann Furedi

    I have posted an article on Ann Furedi, the founder of the BPAS abortion provider, chair of the Pro-choice Forum, member of the British Embroyology and Fertilisation Authority, Living Marxism writer, and wife of the founder of the British Communist Party of Great Britain. It gets repeatedly deleted. I have no idea why, and I get no explanation. It is simply a few biographical facts about a person who has had much influence in these matters in Britain in recent years. I don't know what to do and I would be grateful for some help. If you can help, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Ros Power 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have discussed the issue with the deleting administrator, and have since restored the article. It was deleted because it was mistaken for an "attack page", an article that exists solely to disparage its subject. I am sorry about the mistake, but would also like to suggest that you enlist the aid of an experienced editor to ensure such a mistake is not repeated when people look at your future articles. Happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=55830445"