User talk:William M. Connolley/Admin 1

Please reply at Talk:3RR

My edits were carefully considered, and I intend to restore them, but as it has sat for seven weeks like that, a little discussion first will do no harm. Please join the discussion here. I will ask SlimVirgin, who made the original edit, to do so also. StrangerInParadise 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply there. William M. Connolley 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

Licorne - thank you!

Welcome to the Licorne show - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne for details of the show. Thanks for blocking him! You may want to block User:66.194.104.5 too - Licorne used that IP to go on editing the David Hilbert article after you'd blocked him. --Alvestrand 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked; semi'd; see DH talk page. William M. Connolley 22:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

I didn't see a need for a checkuser unless Licorne explicitly denies being those IPs. The circumstantial evidence of them being the same is so high that it doesn't even seem worth the trouble if nobody contests it. --Fastfission 01:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way -- I'm not exactly sure where this goes now, after the RFC. The user is obviously not interested in making any changes and so it seems just a limited amount of time until he is banned from working on those types of articles for good. Is an entire RFA needed in this instance, where things seem so very clean cut, or is there a way to expedite the inevitable? Let me know what you think about this. --Fastfission 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If Licorne has ignored the RFC, and the behaviour continues, and cannot be checked by admin action (which will be easier in future), then you have to go through RFA; balancing the pain of RFA against the pain of disruption. Though to be honest RFA in this case should not be too painful, just a bit protracted. William M. Connolley 09:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Well, in the end, I filed the preliminary RFA, as you have seen. Fortunately I don't think this will drag out too long, as it is pretty clear that Licorne is constitutionally unable to appear as an editor working in good faith. Thanks for your patience with him and this! I am hoping you at least find it somewhat amusing. --Fastfission 19:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Licorne's editing as User:67.78.143.226 to avoid your block..... the POV is unmistakable. It's one that he used for a sock puppet vote on the Poincaré page too. --Alvestrand 20:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I *had* just noticed. The POV is deeply suspicious: can you find any diffs to demonstrate its Licorne more clearly? William M. Connolley 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Typical POV: [1] - Licorne in his own name: [2] - also note lack of input on any other subject. --Alvestrand 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not 100% convincing, but I think its good enough. In fact I've already blocked that IP. William M. Connolley 21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

I haven't seen anyone else claim that Hilbert's remarks are an *obvious* claim on GR. But I keep some notes on the situation at User:Alvestrand/POV-history - that's the notes where I was able to recognize the IP when I saw a Licorne-like POV. Too detailed and incomplete to be much use in the generic discussions, I think. --Alvestrand 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjayme blocked

Thanks for taking care of that. I have a feeling that user will be back in some form or another. I was just looking for the Wikipedia page on imposters, but haven't been able to find it. Is there a template for that? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Let me know if you find out... William M. Connolley 18:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it {{impersonator|of}} William M. Connolley 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Allegation by Haham hanuka

Given your previous allegations at my address, which still go unanswered, I am not very happy that you brought this up in the Wikipedia space, in the middle of my request. Now that it is there, I want my name of course cleared as soon as possible. I am very unhappy with your attitude towards me that includes weird things an admin should not say to a hard working user. My questions on this affair have been deleted from your talk page, so I expect the same will happen to this posting. WHY are you doing this to me? Why do I deserve this? gidonb 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

HH made the accusation. There is a revert war going on there, to which you are contributing. I made it clear that I express no opinion. This is nothing to wind yourself up about. William M. Connolley 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Mark Bourrie and 3RR question

Thank you for blocking user:Mark Bourrie. Unfortunately he's back at it again, and seems to be using a generic IP user:142.78.64.58.

I've also posted a 3RR question on the Administrator's BB that I think you can answer. --Cyberboomer 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman

Don't be intimidated by his threats on his user page to report you for "misconduct". He's obviously chatting complete crap and nobody will back him up. Deskana (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't see...

I hope you do not take any drastic action, but I just thought you'd like to see this remark made against you. I have tried to remind Amib to remain civil, let's hope it takes. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you My Lord (sorry, I just wanted to say that :-). Yes, I saw it, lets hope there are no repeats; not pleasant but. BTW, I blocked for 3RR but you almost seem to have implied that some of the changes were justified. That doesn't excuse breaking 3RR, but I would unblock if you thought it appropriate. William M. Connolley 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

Sorry for the delayed response. I think there was just some confusion over what the edits really were. They were so ambiguous, they may have been justified, they may not have been. I probably would have requested he be unblocked, but either way, if I am not mistaken, his block has ended, so let's just hope everyone there acts responsibly from here on out (me included... was perhaps a bit harsh). Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman block

The block was only for 48 hours, so please make sure that it is lifted at the correct time this time. There was an autoblocker problem before. His block should be lifted at 00:18, February 25, 2006 (by my math). Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm up then :-). Autoblockers can generally be avoided by not trying to evade the block anonymously, of course :-) William M. Connolley 17:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. If you're up, if you could keep a special eye on his block so he doesn't get over blocked again, that'd be great. Thanks for all your hard work. Thanks!Gator (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being awfully nice to him, esp after his comments on your talk page. Still, I've checked the block log and there is no sign of the autoblocker having kicked in, so he should be OK. I'll probably still be on line then (sigh...), since I think I'm an hour off GMT. William M. Connolley 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

Do unto others. When iI was young here I made some mistakes and so I have some idea of what he's going through. I wa sable to move on adn become a good editor (I think). I'm just trying my best to end hostilities with him and bring him back into the fold. We'll see if my efforts prove fruitful. Thanks for your energies and for removing the semi-protect. Keep up the good work.Gator (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Checkeruser and Other Info

Mr. Connolley, That IP address could be anyone, since this is a school, yet, Sifu should really not to make an effort to inform others, in an active way, so they can see where I live. I do not use my address anymore, which was when I was new here, and was not aware of the policies. This is a public computer in a school by the way, would this make a difference? Is it not justified that now that I have signed all my previous comments, that I should ask user Siafu to delete the IP address on the Parthia discussion page? Also, the user Codex Sinaiticus may have other usernames, which would not be fair to others, so how can I ``requests for checkuser.``? Do you recommend I should do so? At any rate, I look forward to your response. Thanks again.Zmmz 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be, and yet its recently been used to make edits eerily similar to yours. checkuser has a backlog, and is only really used for serious vandalism; being able to find it is a necessary hurdle to stop over-use. William M. Connolley 12:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Rob and NPOV

If you have a moment, would you explain to him that NPOV means that we reflect what scholars in the article's field have to say and that it is not required for a very small minority position even to be mentioned, much less given equal time. He keeps insisting that his standard of evidence must prevail. I will not engage him on this myself, since he does not listen to me.

BTW, please read the exchange on the Robsteadman talk page between he and I. Am I being unreasonable or out of step with wikipedia by trying to moderate discussion in this manner? --CTSWyneken 12:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, since I've blocked Rob twice, I doubt he'll do much to listen to me. I've had issues with people quoting NPOV policy at me in the global warming wars; it went to arbcomm in the end, one way or another. My view of NPOV is that articles mention all *significant* views, but that they should be mentioned in rough proportion to their "popularity". In a scientific article, "popularity" means as-seen-in-the-scientific-journals. And in practice, since skeptic views are such a minority in GW, they actually ge over-weighted in the article. OTOH (the classic case) in an article about the shape of the earth, mentioning the flat-earthers is not necessary. Now, obviously there is a lot of biblical scholarship, and I guess thats one measure of "popularity". But perhaps an article on Jesus also ought to take into account Jesus-as-seen-by-religious-folk? I'm not sure; I haven't read the article.

As to moderating discussion... depending on circumstances you may be better on the article talk page. Having just looked at his talk page, I think you've done your best there. Rob is becoming convinced that there is a cabal against him. You may have to go through WP:RFC to try to sort this out. William M. Connolley 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Republic (dialogue)

Hi William, if he's blocked, there's no need for protection, so I've removed it. Thank you for checking with me. :-) Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lou franklin and 3RR

As soon as the block you gave Lou Franklin for 3RR expired he continued his edit war on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality [3] [4] [5]. The impression I get from WP:3RR is that it does not entitle Wikipedians to continually revert three times a day, which is what he's doing. I've already warned him against gaming 3RR in this way on his talk page, and I wonder if you might consider blocking him again to stop his disruption, or at least reinforcing what I told him - I'm not an admin and he apparently considers me part of the gay cabal for helping to revert his POV edits, so a warning from you might carry more weight. --Malthusian (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't block him for that... well I could, but I think it would be dodgy and likely someone would undo it. If he goes on for several days, using just 3RR a day against a clear consensus, then thats disruption and he can be blocked for it. In some things, like this, we sort of feel our way towards the right actions. If you can find a more trigger-happy admin, you could try them. But for the moment, he has been reverted. I'll leave a note on his talk page William M. Connolley 21:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm completely happy with that. You're probably right that this doesn't yet constitute an "excessive case" as it says on WP:3RR. So long as he knows. Well, he should know already, but as long as he can't plead ignorance. --Malthusian (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, after entering it I saw above. I entered it on the 3RR page, so we'll see if another admin picks it up. Thanks, Cleduc 23:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am not sure who to contact within Wikipedia Tech Support or management to fix this mistake. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to check the Happyjoe user page, where you'll see who blocked you, and why. You should contact them. William M. Connolley 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been deceived, Sir !

By banning me and this poor Rose-Mary as a WP editor, you have been deceived, Sir, by a bunch of guys, who, like a pack of wolves, are biting and vandalizing in alternance any redaction concerning a decipherment, that they hate, of the Phaistos Disk... signed 80.90.57.154, whatever the IP he uses.

nb: moved to 80's talk page William M. Connolley 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find it ! (User 80.90.57.154,16:45, 28 February 2006)

Its on Talk:80.90.57.154 your talk page William M. Connolley 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be User talk:80.90.57.154? I'm moving it. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Arghhh! Thanks. William M. Connolley 20:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No a very fair attitude, Mr Connolley. I would have expected the deletion of the information, but without the deletion of the way to discuss between us. Never mind ! I thank you for having listened to my arguments, and will not disturg you, if nothing new happens. (User 80.90.57.154 , 10:27, 1 March 2006)

Editing now as 80.90.38.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -- Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks. Only for your information, Sir, allow me to bring you the proof of the collusion between at least two of my adversaries. Here is the exchange they made:

==IAR==

I would agree this is a case for sprotection, if only to impress on 80.90 that prolongued logged-out debates are not good wikiquette; his Rose-mary account may be old enough to allow him to still edit the article, encouraging him to choose and stick with one identity. In any case I am far too involved in this to decide on sprotection, but you are welcome to do it :) dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, the problem is, I don't posses the means to semi-protect and even if I did, I'd be too involved. Anyway, if the IP reverts again, it'll be a 3RRvio; if Rose-mary reverts two more times, it'll be a 3RRvio, so keep hoping ;-) The problem is, that he seems to have other accounts; what we do need is a WP:RCU - I think I'll make one (unless one's already been made). --Latinus 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm sure if you requested semi-protection, explained the circumstances and reminded uninvolved sysops of IAR and that what we're supposed to be doing here is writing an encyclopaedia, it may work - who knows? They're more likely to grant it if you request it than I or Septentrionalis. --Latinus 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

that would be a good way. oops, not anymore, I'd have to request a user check on you now :p seriously, we don't really need it. 3RR is good enough, and 80.90 does show prepared to compromise, it's just very tedious to cut through all the ranting to get there. dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Signed : (User 80.90.57.154 ,17:33, 28 February 2006)

Yes, they are talking together in wiki namespace. If they were colluding, they would be doing it in private by email. I strongly suggest you try to talk about this (concisely) on the articles talk page William M. Connolley 20:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

WMC, why do you presume to speak for others?

hello William, you redirect a topic of critisizm of the Kyoto protocol, to a topic of support for the Kyoto protocol, oppose means oppose. --CorvetteZ51 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page there, the KP page is not pro-kyoto William M. Connolley 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Trinity College, Dublin and WP:3RR

Hello, I see you blocked Metaphysicist for breaching the 3RR, no worries, total agreement there. However, to treat both sides the same, should you not also have blocked Demiurge for the same reason, as he reverted the same article four times in 24 hours (+ a few minutes)? Regards, MartinRe 17:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Answered on 3RR page; see also my answers on my RFadmin :-) William M. Connolley 20:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, saw the reply there, thanks. :) If I ever get to that stage, I'll probably answer the question differently: (*cough* *clears throat*) "If it clear that the user is working against the intent of the rule (i.e. by using reverts as an editing technique) and only following the letter of the law, I would regards that as a breach of 3RR. Every policy that 'allows' X mistakes is open to abuse by users deliberately only making X-1 mistakes, and the best way to stop such abuses is to be liberal in interpretation when the system is obviously being gamed." That's my take on 3RR, but I can understand yours too, as it's clearly defined. Regards, MartinRe 21:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats OK. I know other people think that way, and I wouldn't complain if others block on it - if you skate close to the edge, you shouldn't be surprised if you get into trouble. Some of this is from my own history: but the rules were different in those days. I'm a WP:1RR person nowadays ;-) William M. Connolley 22:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a sound policy - like the internet rfc793: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." MartinRe 09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My block

If you had read my description and checked the diffs reverts 2-4 were reversions of vandalistic blanking. I did not violate the 3rr. (reply on my talk) Seraphim 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your page William M. Connolley 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rose-mary socks

Hi William, I suppose you've noticed Rose-mary/Faucouneau's new activities, within your latest 24-hour block of Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the 1-week block of her other IPs, this time as 80.90.37.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Time for a prolonged block of the named account for a month or so, and license to revert anything from 80.90.*.* on sight during that time? Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for a week William M. Connolley 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. But shouldn't Rose-mary herself have her block prolonged too? The IP blocks don't really achieve anything, because he/she evidently gets a fresh IP assigned every day anyway. If we do all agree that 80.90.*.* and Rose-mary are socks of each other, then Rose-mary now deserves the proper punishment for block-evading, and blocking Rose-mary would at least "legally" (if not technically) imply outlawing of all the 80.90.*.* activities too, wouldn't it? Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not an awful lot of point in blocking the "true" address if that drives her to anons. Blocked the latest: see PD talk William M. Connolley 16:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Following our last exchange, I thought, Mr Connolley, that you had understood that you had been shamefully manipulated by people who don't care about the WP reputation as a serious encyclopedia; Well, it seems that it was self-delusion of my part... Because once again you sided with a known vandalist (systematically deleting what hurts his POV), dogmatic (e.g. deleting American spelling in favour of his English spelling) and liar (I am not Rose-Mary, even if we may both have the same IP, neither I am "Irismeister"), Mr Lukas Pietsch. For you information (but is it necessary, as you seem to know him pretty well), here is a sample of hisway to discuss : Quote : Why, Mr Pietsch, have you suppressed the important information for the WP reader, that the J.Faucounau's deciphering attempt, presented as an hypothesis in 1975 by his author, has been republished in 1999 and 2001 after gathering of evidence ? What do you find so monstrous in mentioning this ? What WP rule is it hurting ? Is it not the WP:NPOV rule which is betrayed by deleting the words gathered evidence  ? Is it not acting like a partisan that contributing to this deletion ? I'm eager to hear your answers, Mr Pietsch... (User 80.90.57.154 ,11:29, 1 March 2006).

Just because you're an obnoxious sockpuppet who is or ought to be blocked, and editing against consensus. Nothing more serious than that, really, grapheus. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Unquote.

Is it not the negation of the WP spirit, Mr Connolley, calling consensus the POV of a bunch of editors, whose confessed sole justication is their acting like a pack of wolves, biting and vandalising in alternance, in order to impose their views ? Please, think about that, Mr Connolley, before penalizing again the innocent party. Your's faithfully (User 80.90.57.154, 15:30, 2 March 2006)

Neto

That's fine. I blocked LC right before I went to bed, and only then realized that Neto probably shouldn't have been editing the template at all. Thank you for taking care of my loose ends :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR

Ok I'll stop, but what would you call this?

• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]
• 3rd revert: [8]
• 4th revert: [9]
• 5th revert: [10]
• 6th revert: [11]
• 7th revert: [12]
• 8th revert: [13]
• 9th revert: [14]
• 10th revert: [15]
• 11th revert: [16]

I'd call that quite a few reverts, but it doesn't look like a breach of WP:3RR at first sight. In any even, I'm not going to block based on the article, since I have an interest. I have blocked you for your edits to the 3RR page, though. William M. Connolley 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

3rr

I just went to the 3rr page and saw "If you find yourself in a revert war, it is a very good idea to ensure that the "other side" is aware of the 3RR rule, especially if they are new. Please leave a warning about WP:3RR on their talk page." that in the top of the page. I could have sworn it wasn't there earlier, so I checked and much to my amusement you were the person that added it. Why did you add that when you don't believe warnings are necessary? On my 3rr ALR warned me at 5:05 diff. I then went to bed and stopped editing the article because I realized he was going to file a 3rr if I kept going and I didn't want to have to deal with it(my last edit that morning 5:00 am 5 minutes before he sent me the warning). Then when I stopped he still filed it 8 minutes later diff. You might want to change the wording to say that it's ok to place a warning and then immediatly file a 3rr and as long as the warning was there before you filed the 3rr it's ok, and it doesn't matter if they stop once they have been warned. (I'll watch for a reply here) Seraphim 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in general its good practice, which is why I added it yesterday. It has nothing to do with your case (see my note near the end of the 3RR page). But warnings are not *necessary*. William M. Connolley 09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Connolley

Hello, we would like to invite you as an admin to have a look at the dispute going on here: Talk:Persian_people, there is some Talk:Persian_people#Compromise.3F taking place, however we fear that once the attackers return, since we don't have any admins viewing the issue, the dispute will not be resolved.

So we appreciate it if you could have a look.

This is part of the incidents, reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aucaman_and_User:Heja_helweda_and_User:Diyako

Regards, --Kash 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but it will be half a day at least. William M. Connolley 09:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I had a look, I don't know whats going on. I'm going to leave a message at User talk:Khoikhoi though William M. Connolley 19:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne evading block again

and editing David Hilbert as User:66.194.104.5. You've blocked that IP as Licorne before. --Alvestrand 15:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, blocked. I may up Licornes block too William M. Connolley 16:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I noted the evasion on the arbitration evidence page. Figured it couldn't hurt. --Alvestrand 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

..and what do you think of this edit? [17] was done by 66.194.98.232 (talk · contribs · block log), a City of Clearwater IP address from a netblock that's previously been used by IP 66.194.98.170 (talk · contribs · block log), suspected of being a Licorne sock puppet. Licorne still not taking a block seriously? --Alvestrand 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the block log, I'm ahead of you... William M. Connolley 23:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (should learn to check that...) --Alvestrand 23:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

67.78.143.226 (talk · contribs · block log) is back. Just before the end of Licorne's 48-hour ban.... --Alvestrand 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the olympics

We're having more revert problems with User:88.152.202.122 who you previously blocked.

Only one so far; let me know if it goes up... William M. Connolley 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Firmitas

He has come a long way during the day. I appologize, but I may have jumped the gun on requesting the block for 3RR. He did stop as soon as I warned him. He's had some other questionable behaviour, but he is adapting as rules are pointed out to him and may actually be acting in good faith. If you'd be willing, I'd suggest removing the block. So sorry for wasting your time on this. -Jcbarr 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, always happy to unblock a deserving case William M. Connolley 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

New comers

You can not block a new comer before he even relaized he has a user page, talk page and a welcome message. That is uncivilized. Zeq 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? William M. Connolley 20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

user "I am" Zeq 07:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated to clean up Persian people

User:Aucaman has been engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing Persian people, pushing his POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, trying to establish new 'facts" based on his own personal assumptions, political beliefs, and racist interpretations. [18] He also repeatedly engages in racially-motivated personal attacks and vandalizes Persian people which has resulted in the protection of page. Furthermore, he is a chronic 3RR violator, but also violates other wikipedia rules by vandalizing and then removing warnings from his talk. [19] Would you please take a look at this issue and help us clean up Persian people. ( Talk:Persian people & Mediation/Persian_people )

Regards. --ManiF 00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support William. I have created a Meditation page so we can have this matter resolved. Thanks again. --Khoikhoi 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, best of luck, let me know if you need help William M. Connolley 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

WMC, can you go to the 3rr board and see why user Aucaman has not blocked; note that he has repeatedly deleted his warning messages. ThanksZmmz 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Its explained on the 3RR page William M. Connolley 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui

Siddiqui is now editing as 69.194.136.40, violating his 3RR block. He's such a PITA that it just makes me feall better to tell somebody. --Nemonoman 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to do anything about it, you'll need to provide a few details - diffs perhaps - and some reason to believe that it is S William M. Connolley 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

69.194.136.40 is my IP address and I sometimes forget to login and start contributing. That is the only explanation. When you are banned even your IP is banned. So I cannot use that IP address in that case. The Aurangzeb page has became property of Nemonoman no one can contribute as changes are either censured or modified by him. I added info about Aurangzeb's wife and children the it was modified, moved and some info deleted by Nemonoman. Is the names of his children not a relevent information ? According to Nemonoman, I am PITA then Nemonoman could be bigger PITA.

Siddiqui 16:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo

You recently blocked User:Molobo and an anonymous User:153.19.48.103 for sockpuppetry. I know both users personally and I know they are two different people. Can you please check the IP addresses before you block innocent people? Thanks, dragon. Space Cadet 12:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

153.19.48.103

Molobo is blocked anyway for 3RR. He is having his block extended for socks, which I may reconsider. I have no way to know whether you are accurate when you say they are different people. And... if you're going to talk about me, it would be polite to do it in English, or else use email if you want to be private William M. Connolley 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A serious problem user

Thank you for your block against this anon user. You have stumbled upon one of the worst users I have ever come across with regards to blatant disregard of 3RR and blocking/banning policy. The user in question has at least three user accounts which he has used to cirmvent blocks and bands, most notably on Comparative military ranks of World War II. These include User:Tt1, User:Roitr, and User:Alexr23. When these accounts are blocked, the user will proceed to make edits under dozens of anon ip addresses. I have been diligent in dealing with this edit war vandal. Perhaps you can keep an eye on this as well. Thank you! -Husnock 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably want to put a request on the requests-for-checkuser page, to tie those accounts together. Let me know if the anon returns to reverting. William M. Connolley 16:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Rose-mary

Hi William; please see Talk:Phaistos_Disc#Hempel_.2F_Stawell_.2F_Faucounau: I am enforcing your one week block of Rose-mary by slapping the anon IPs (being involved in the article, I cannot make my own block decisions). If you want to reconsider the block or if you do not think I should be doing this, please tell me on my talkpage. Also, you should not issue one week blocks on Rose-mary's IPs since they belong to a major Luxembourgh ISP and she is just reconnecting if blocked; just pronounce how long the block is supposed to last, and block each IP for a couple of hours as it shows up. regards, dab (ᛏ) 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... bit of a mess. So: I blocked Rose-mary for 24h for 3RR. The IPs I slapped as socks for a random time; I just picked 1 week at random. So I think its fair to say that R-M's 3RR would have expired, if she hadn't kept using socks. Tell you what, lets move the discussion to WP:AN/I#Routine_block_evasion_by_IP_80.90..2A..2A_and_User:Rose-mary William M. Connolley 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As you only know me through the lies of Mr Lukas Pietsch, relied by Mr Bachmann, please know at least who my accusator is : Mr Lukas Pietsch is an obscure doctor in Linguistics, who works at the Hamburg University as a "Veranstalter" ( i.e. an assistant). His main reference is an essay on Variable Grammars, published in January 2005 in a confidential way, because of a total lack of interest from the professional linguists. Nevertheless, Dr Lukas Pietsch is well known for his exceptional arrogance in the world of Linguists, but he has succeeded in blocking as "spamming" some links decribing him in an accurate way as a liar. Here is the kind of appreciation one may find on him [20] (but he will surely pretend that the accusator is a sockpuppet of Rose-Mary !). As a conclusion, his false accusations should not be taken in consideration, because he is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Confident in your WP spirit, I hope you will agree. Your faithfully 80.90.57.154, 8:15, 4 March 2006. PS : If I didn't obey to your injonction, it's because my trial has been done in the Stalinist way : no hearing of the defense before the judgement, and not even way to protest after the judgement.

Dear anon, I strongly suggest you get yourself a user account, and stick to it. There is no good reason for not having one, and people will look more kindly upon you William M. Connolley 11:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Look more kindly like Dr Pietsch did with this poor Rose-mary ? I've been luky enough to talk to her thanks to a common friend (In fact, I correctly guessed who she was from her IP). She told me that she had been deeply disgusted by what happened to (her) when she tried to contribute to Wikipedia (her own words), and that she will never try to edit anything in this encyclopedia, which is not what (she) thought. You should think about that, Mr Connolley, because I know that Rose-Mary is a very nice and competent person... Regards (User 80.90.57.154, 14:30, 4 March 2006) PS : I'll not write to you anymore, I've to travel during the next few days for professional motive.

thanks

In the circumstances, I hereby award you one week's supply of my gratitude, whatever that may be worth! Palmiro | Talk 16:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll take what I can get :-)

Anderson12

Usercheck

Was userchecked agasint Basil Rathbone a couple of days ago [[21]]

I was probably a bit hasty when I recognised the behaviour.ALR 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of socking by User: Anderson12

Actually, there's very good evidence - check usercontribs. The first thing Anderson12 did was go after the "Freemasonry scratchpad" we had removed before as material posted by a sock. He could not have accessed it unless he knew it was there. He reported a 3RR on his 7th edit. He also accused me of being a sock of Grye, and Grye was inactive at the time (hence he was not added to Jahbulon RFM, so Anderson12 wouldn't have known who he was. So, given his knowledge of policy (as a note, I'm not sure what's counted, but his "gallery format" comment is actually a misleading edit summary. Now, the question is, is he a sock using User:Lightbringer's IP addys, or is he a sock of User:Basil Rathbone's? Also, his userpage is a lift of User:Giovanni33's; Anderson's edit history shows no interest whatsoever in Philosophy project, but a lot of interest in posting whatever he wants to Freemasonry. He can't even keep his sources straight - first he credits Duncan, now all of a sudden it's Morgan for the same material? He has also piecemeal deleted material off the Talk page, and a lot of what's he got to say is "Mason" this and "Mason" that, and we've all heard that sort of thing before, and I'm going to guess that I don't need to tell you from whom. In short, I would say that at this point that one would be hard-pressed not to find evidence, but I figured I would respond to your query. MSJapan 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Result

OK, as the sock of a sock, that gets a long ban, irrespective of nRR. I shall do that. Which means that... you shouldn't have reported this at 3RR but at WP:AN/I? William M. Connolley 21:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of response to WP:AN/I reports I was a bit frustrated. But appreciate it must be getting frustrating for Admins as well, there is a disproportionate amount of effort having to go into the FM page.ALR 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just ot note, I had reported prior incidents in a number of places (VIP, ANI, RFCU) and had gotten no response. Part of the problem with LB socks is that apparently LB's info has not been retained because the limit on edit history had expired (or so I gathered), so this is why we've had to move on to Rathbone as main account, simply for info's sake. You might want to check User:WMMrgn, while you're at it, but thanks for the timely response. MSJapan 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't it be an indefinite ban, as ArbCom prohibits editing on Freemasonry, which is precisely and only what he did? MSJapan 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The ban wasn't for editing anything, it was for being a sock of a banned user. It could have been indef, but there isn't all that much point, new accounts aren't hard to come by! William M. Connolley 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing Privilages Warning

Hi, WMC, I left the below warnings on the talkpages of users Aucaman, Talk, and Heja Helweda, because some discussion pages edited by these users are being turned into chatrooms kind of; furthermore, numerous edit wars started by these users seem to see no end,

“Hi, please know you have submitted numerous amount of writting in many, many discussion pages that relates to an article; Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Please know that according to Wikepedia`s policy, in good faith I have to warn you and any other user before I report them to an admin for violating any of the policies. Over-excessive writting in these discussion pages may be grounds for a temporary, or a permanent block. That would be up to the admin in question”.Zmmz 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a strange thing to write. Unsurprisingly, A has removed it William M. Connolley 19:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

Policy Violation

WMC, please go to the Al Khwarizmi discussion page, not only that page is a mess, but personal attacks such as the example below should not be tolerated. The user MB has done this many times, despite warnings and the attempts of others to compromise. Under the section ``Khwarizmi being Persian: Original research which has nothing to do with Wikipedia``, the user states,

"Let's look into the Persians' claims, shall we?

Zmmz lists Merriam-Webster with this quote: "Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe".

Notice, it says "Persian-born" in parantheses, and gives Islamic as the nationality. Basically, they defined him by religion and stated his place of birth. He was born in Khwarizm, in the Khorasan province. At the time of his birth, it was part of the Arab Islamic Caliphate, now it's part of the Uzbegistan nation-state. Alas, Persians burnt us saying that it's in fact Persian, so let's take it as Persian. Now, according to sources cited by Heja Helwada, Khorasan in general had a huge Arab population. In accordance to that, defining him as Persian simply because he was born in Khorasan, is not only disputed at best, it also constitutes OR(original research) which is against Wiki's policy, see: WP:NOR

A troll showed up lately and claimed that Arabs are fighting a losing battle, I'm not sure we're in a battle-field here, but I got the gist: he thinks we have no sources...poor little guy!

Sources that state he's explicitly an Arab:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlKhowar.html

I figured user MB who used foul language against another user could have been blocked. Zmmz 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC) http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761560322___0/Khwarizmi_al-.html

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9311992

Who's losing the "battle" now, I wonder? MB 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)". Zmmz 19:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Zmmz 19:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. Not at all sure what you want here. Editors get to do content and content disputes. Admins get to enforce 3RR, policy, etc. William M. Connolley 19:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any foul langauge... which do you mean? "a troll", or "poor little guy"? William M. Connolley 19:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually both...arent they aganst wikis policy of personal attacks, and good faith assumption..he has done it so many times before.Zmmz 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguably impolite, but difficult to call "foul". But please, if you're going to quote, do it exactly, don't add emphasis unless you indicate it. In fact, a diff [22] would have been better. No, MB is not going to get blocked for just that William M. Connolley 20:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

I know you`re a fair guy from experience, but I`ve got to tell you, I`m definitely surprised that users can get away with stuff like this in here. Wikipedia isn`t a chatroom afterall. But, not even a warning either huh? Any way thanks for looking into it at least.Zmmz 21:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility is best, I agree. But we cannot stomp on people for minor incivility, at least in part because people disagree about some words. Arguably civility could be more enforced... and I see it has been [23]. I admit to surprise William M. Connolley 21:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Poof (sighs deeply...) , WMC take a look at this one: this page by user Talk . This may a clear, and unfair personal attack: "In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's" Diyako, 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC). I think this going too far, and I wish one the admins comes and clean-up some of these discussion pages. Thanks Zmmz 00:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, it seems that was an old comment made by the user; nevertheless, still in bad taste though.Zmmz 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

That's my user space, so it's up to me to remove abusive messages, and your last message is obviously offensive. Pecher ^Talk 10:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially considering this edit it doen't look like you practice what you preach. Pecher ^Talk 10:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I remove spam, like anyone else. You seem to be working yourself up into a fit of indignation, which is a waste of time William M. Connolley 10:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII

I blocked User:RJII for violating 3RR (previous version, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) but User:Jpgordon unblocked because he thought these were not four reverts. I believe he was wrong, could you take at it? Cheers, —Ruud 17:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Palmer revert issue

Thanks for taking a look anyway. I was basically just concerned because I saw what seemed to be one editor using two acocunts and one anon IP to repeatedly remove a link without consensus. I had reverted a few times, and wanted to draw some attention to the matter so others could review any possible use of sock puppets. Cheers, Dick Clark 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but to come up under 3RR it has to fit the rules. You'll probably require some evidence that they are the same person, too William M. Connolley 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I'm not too familiar with the 3RR process, so forgive my clumsiness. We'll see what happens... Dick Clark 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

3rr for Garglebutt

Thanks for the warning. I really need to take a deep breath on Dean McVeigh as I suspect it is far from over. I keep telling myself not to get into these "do so! did not!" edits, particularly when I am dealing with two POV editors. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Garglebutt

Garglebutt is trying to counter a concerted and coordinated POV drive by two close political alies. Garglebutt is just the latest user to try to deal with them. They have gone well over three reverts, probably closer to 10 and if anyone should be blocked it is User:DarrenRay and User:2006BC. Xtra 10:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Joint response

A deep breath is a good idea. X: he/you won't beat a concerted campaign just by reverting more often than them. Take it to talk; start an RFC; recruit more people to your "side". But sterile reverting is not good William M. Connolley 11:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The "other" side has now grown to three. I would walk away but I just finished walking away from another contentious article and it struck me that if editors give up when the going gets tough then the vandals weaken wikipedia. I'm also learning a lot about dispute management and arbitration. ;) That said, I'll give this one a breather and see what happens over the next couple of days since there are many neutral contributors to this group of articles that haven't been involved in this evenings escalation. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR, etc.

Once in a blue moon I check the recent contributions of editors I had memorable contact with. I seem to be a little tardy, but you may find the following link informative. [24] I couldn't be more delighted that he left the page. It went into mediation and page protection while he was there. Now it's 11-1 on an FAC. Contact me if this develops into a user RfC. Regards, Durova 09:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dz says he is on a break now William M. Connolley 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. Best wishes, Durova 15:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's back. Could you help out? Joan of Arc achieved featured status last night. Now he's returned after a hiatus of nearly three months and disrupting things again. The gist is, he thinks he's descended from one of Joan of Arc's brothers and tries to edit the article into accordance with an unreferenced family tree his aunt constructed a few decades ago. I'm ready to initiate formal grievance procedures against him for user conduct. You stated on another talk page that you hadn't seen him make a useful edit in weeks. I've dealt with him for months and I doubt I've ever seen a useful edit from him.I should be able to document WP:NOR, WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:Civility, WP:OWN, and WP:What Wikipedia is not#Not a soapbox. I've never initiated a user grievance before so please advise. Thank you. Durova 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick question: I started the RfC. Should I notify anyone on their user page? If so, who? Durova 02:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User Arianitr continues with his behaviour

Hi. I would like to inform you that the user Arianitr continued with his edits, but now with a new tactic: he created a new article about the same thing: old article he didn't succeed to revert to his version:Gostivar and his new article:Gostivari (albanian name of the town). I tried to make a redirect from his newly created article to the existing one, but he reverted my edit back and put an insulting note on my talk page (the insult is written in Macedonian language and I will not translate that for now). As I can see, he is doing the same in the other pages as well:[25]. Namely, he has created a new Arvanit article, despite the existing Arvanites article. Please, as an administrator, consider his actions because he is going too far. Bitola 11:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Gostivari as a POV fork not even in English William M. Connolley 12:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Arvanit has been put up for VFD. I think this is a tactical mistake. If it should be a redirect, keep making it one. William M. Connolley 12:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again, but Arianitr recreated the POV fork Gostivari again. I know that he is a newcomer, but we already warned him several times, and he doesn't look conserned by that. He even redirected the original article to his page: [26]. Thanks for your help. Bitola 16:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made that a redirect and protected it, and blocked A for 12 hours for disruption William M. Connolley 16:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that this user is actually not a newbie, but apparently has a longer history of disruptive behaviour, with repeated near-vandalistic POV edits as an anon. See User:LukasPietsch/Arianitr. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)