Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

User:Herschelkrustofsky

I would like to block Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) for violation of LaRouche 1, LaRouche 2, and Nobs01, which placed him on indefinite probation and prohibited him from making edits related to Lyndon LaRouche.

He recently engaged in an edit war at Synarchism, deleting or modifying criticism of LaRouche six times over a couple of days. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I left a note on his talk page warning him that his edits were a violation of the arbcom rulings. [7] [8]

wHe stopped editing the article, but yesterday left a note for another LaRouche activist, BirdsOfFire (talk · contribs), asking him to make the edits instead, [9] which BirdsOfFire did a few hours later, even though he's only an occasional editor (90 edits in four months.) [10] I see Herschelkrustofsky's use of BirdsOfFire, whether as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, as a violation of the ruling and of his probation, and I'd therefore like to block Herschel for three days and reset the ban on LaRouche-related editing. Other input would be much appreciated. I've pasted the pertinent rulings below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting an immediate ip check on BirdsOfFire because if it is indeed a sock (as the patterns appear to be the same and the infrequency of the BirdsOfFire edits seem to suggest) then indef. block... I would also suggest bringing this back up to the arbcom if this continues for potential re-evaluation of the ruling to see if an indef. ban might be needed for Herschelkrustofsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasus1138 (talk • contribs)

• CheckUser confirms both userids are using the same IP ranges. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay and Pegasus. I've blocked BirdsOfFire indefinitely as a sockpuppet and I'm going to block Herschel for three days and reset the ban. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also banned Herschel from editing Synarchism in accordance with Nobs01 and Wikipedia:Probation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, at this point it may be worth it to ask the arbcom to revisit the ruling since Hershcel has repeatedly violated the ruling and has created numerous sockpuppets to try to get around it, though for the love of me I don't see how anyone can be so obsessed about Lyndon Larouche to purposefully violate 5 or 6 major guidelines at a time trying to POV skew the article about him. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. I don't mind spending time or conceding points to get articles right, but it ticks me off when it turns out that other editors are pulling stunts that make the job more difficult or that take advantage of the system. The aggressive POV pushing by HK and (what have turned out to be) his puppets is an abuse consensus and of our open editing. In previous ArbCom cases HK could argue that he aided the project on topics unrelated (or barely-related) to LaRouche, like classical music, but recently he has only worked on LaRouche-related articles. I don't think that anopther ArbCom case is needed - the previous cases included addtional enforcement procedures that we just need to follow. -Will Beback 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I use one computer only. No one else has access to this computer. It automatically logs on to this screen name, and I never log off this screen name. SlimVirgin's accusations of sockpuppetry are an entirely fraudulent and dishonest vehicle for pushing her POV. As far as IP ranges are concerned, I access the internet from an AOL account in the Los Angeles area; there may well be a few dozen other Wikipedia editors who are using these IP ranges as you read this post.

I don't know what the IP addresses are, but I'm guessing they're the same ones that were identified during LaRouche 2 that seemed to have been used by you and at least one of the other LaRouche accounts. In my view, it's more than a cooincidence that another person using AOL in Los Angeles uses the same two IP ranges, edits the same articles from the same LaRouche POV, and even though he hasn't edited in days is there within hours to revert to your version after you ask him to on his talk page. Of course, that doesn't mean you're necessarily the same person; it could be another member of the LaRouche movement that you use as a back-up, but that counts as sockpuppetry for the purposes of LaRouche 2. I don't see what difference it makes, in terms of your probation, whether you're physically making LaRouche edits or asking someone else to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have made accusations of sockpuppetry, and yet you "don't know what the IP addresses are"; you're "guessing." I would like Jayjg to come forward and reveal the IP addresses involved, in order to take the guesswork out of this. But then you say that it doesn't really matter, that BirdsOfFire is a "member of the LaRouche movement" anyway. Well, he says he isn't on his talk page, and you routinely brand anyone that gets in your a way a "LaRouche activist." You say that I "asked BirdsOfFire to make the edits instead"; my words on his talk page were "I wanted to call your attention to another article, Synarchism, which the Berlet crowd is attempting to convert into a soapbox." Since we are talking about further admin sanctions against my editing, I think that you ought to have the decency to come up with some real evidence, instead of a bunch of half-truths.--HK 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The article Synarchism has not historically been regarded as a "LaRouche article"; it does not appear on the "LaRouche template," and I did not add material about LaRouche to this article. User:172, in collusion with User:Will Beback, began adding original research, in the form of gratuitous and irrelevant misrepresentations of LaRouche's ideas, to the article, and I objected. SlimVirgin and her cohorts designate articles as "LaRouche related" at their pleasure, just as they designate any editor who questions her tactics as a "LaRouche activist" (as SlimVirgin did BirdsOfFire in this instance, or as Will Beback designated User:Northmeister after that user disagreed with him on the talk page of American System (economics).)

What counts as an article closely related to LaRouche is up to the administrator, and these edits were about LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Likewise, re-setting my ban for yet another year, based on spurious charges of sockpuppetry, should be regarded as an example of SlimVirgin's underhanded Nacht und Nebel tactics at their worst. I will emphasize in closing that SlimVirgin and Will Beback are not disinterested Wikipedia admins, merely trying to bring order and make the trains of Wikipedia run on time. They are both impassioned anti-LaRouche activists. One of SlimVirgin's first interventions into Wikipedia was the creation of the attack article Jeremiah Duggan, which is basically a mirror for the Justice for Jeremiah website, created by Chip Berlet and the usual gang. Will Beback obsessively compiles lists (see User:Will Beback/LaRouche topics) of every article ever edited by myself, or by other editors that he has designated as "LaRouche editors." The two of them constantly compare notes, and they are generally comically misinformed about the objects of their vendetta (see this example.)The actions taken against me by these two, under color of enforcing ArbCom decisions, are POV warfare, scantily disguised as administrative action. --HK 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You've tried many times to tar me with the label "anti-LaRouche activist." If that were true, I'd have rushed to the LaRouche pages to delete your pro-LaRouche edits as soon as you were banned, but in fact I've hardly looked at them. My interest is only in making sure you don't introduce even more POV, and that you abide by the terms of the arbcom rulings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a division of labor here; slanting the LaRouche articles in a defamatory way (in violation of WP:BLP) is Cberlet's job, with some assistance from 172. Your job is to bite the newcomers, bullying them and threatening to ban them (or simply banning them outright, as you did BirdsOfFire,) combined with frequent reverts with no edit summaries. Will Beback wikistalks and harasses anyone who objects. However, your credentials as an anti-LaRouche activist were already established in your first month at Wikipedia, when you authored the attack article Jeremiah Duggan. Although I know of no Wikipedia policy that says you should recuse yourself from the use of admin powers in controversies where you play such a partisan role, I should think that common decency would dictate that you do so. --HK 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The 23:45, 3 April 2006 post on this page by Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) (see above) is a personal attack on four longtime Wikipedia editors: SlimVirgin, Cberlet, Will Beback, and me. In summary, Herschelkrustofsky is accusing Cberlet and me of 'defamation' of Lyndon LaRouche, SlimVirgin of writing bad-faith "attack artilce" related to the tragic death of Jeremiah Duggan, and Will Beback of "wikistalking." The attacks violate Herschelkrustofsky's arbcom probation stemming from the Nobs and others decision. According to the most recent arbcom ruling, if Herschelkrustofsky is disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia by making the personal attacks such as the ones posted above, admins are supposed to note the following:

Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Herschelkrustofsky's probation shall automatically end.

Arbcom rulings are meaningless unless admins enforce them. If Herschelkrustofsky is causing disruption on the administrators' noticeboard, the arbcom instructs admins to block him for up to one year for disregarding his probation. 172 | Talk 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should propose an enforcement in this case, pursuant to the ArbCom's rulings. -Will Beback 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request a review (by unbiased, third party administrators) of SlimVirgin's actions in blocking me and re-setting the one year ban. BirdsOfFire is not my sockpuppet, and I would like to see some sort of evidence that would justify SlimVirgin's actions, other than her own POV agenda. I would likewise like to request a review of Will Beback's actions in blocking me and re-setting my ban on September 30 of 2005, after he had initiated an edit war at the article American System (economics). I had not added material on LaRouche or his ideas to this article since the time of the first LaRouche Arbcom decision, although other editors (including Will Beback) have subsequently done so. Will Beback professes to hold the singular point of view that the entire school of economic thought known as the American System is a "LaRouche concept" [11]. Will abused his admin powers by misrepresenting my edits to this article; he insisted that a reference to the Centennial Exposition represented "material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche," a fanciful theory which I regard as an entirely illegitimate reading of the ArbCom decision. Since Will re-set my one year ban in September of last year on the basis of this theory, other editors have begun working on this article, and the section which was disputed by Will Beback has been restored, not by myself, but by consensus of those editing the article[12]. --HK 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

HK, you have pushed an unusual POV into several articles recently in a disruptive manner, exactly the behavior for which you have been thrice-chastened by the ArbCom. Lyndon LaRouche has eclectic interests, and so many articles are involved that it would be ineffective to block each individually. Therefore, rather than blocking a small number of articles for a long period, I think that a shorter general ban is more apt. The ArbCom has asked any three admins to agree to parole enforcements, and authorizes bans of up to a year. In this instance I propose a general ban of one month. The community has decided repeatedly that it is not going to promulgate ideosyncratic ideologies on the same basis as common wisdom. -Will Beback 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback is now charging me with having "pushed an unusual POV in a disruptive manner." Even if this accusation were warranted (and made in good faith,) I believe that I would still be within my rights to ask that these accusations be examined by neutral administrators who are not party to the long-standing conflict between myself and SlimVirgin/Will Beback. I contend that these two are attempting to misuse the arbcom rulings as a tactic in POV pushing; if these accusations against me were coming from other admins with no ideological axe to grind, they would carry considerably greater weight. SlimVirgin/Will Beback are attempting to establish a tautology whereby I am designated a "LaRouche editor," therefore any article I edit becomes "LaRouche related" (this is the essential basis for Will Beback's list,) and consequently any edit that I make violates the arbcom rulings, ipso facto. Any editor who agrees with me then becomes a "meat puppet," and may be banned by SlimVirgin without warning or explanation. I hope that there are some admins reading this who can see how harmful to Wikipedia it can be, if these tactics by SlimVirgin/Will Beback go unchallenged. --HK 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a self-confessed LaRouche activist, and have been for, as I recall, 30 years or so. You're on indefinite probation and banned from editing LaRouche pages or making pro-LaRouche edits. You have continued to do so from time to time, ignoring that ruling. After repeatedly reverting criticism of LaRouche at Synarchism, I reminded you of the ruling and asked you to stop editing that article. Note: I asked you to stop; I didn't block you. You responded by asking another LaRouche editor (who has made only 62 edits to the encyclopedia, most of them LaRouche-related), and who edits from within the same two IP ranges as you, to revert on your behalf, which he did, though he'd never edited that page before. You must have known this was a violation of the spirit of the ruling, yet you felt confident about doing it, because in fact the LaRouche rulings have not been strictly enforced against you. In addition, the other editor hadn't edited in days, yet was able to revert for you within hours of your request. You were therefore blocked for three days (though it could have been much longer) and had your ban reset. You returned from that block making personal attacks and allegations of corruption, as you do at every available opportunity. Now you're wondering why you're being accused of disruption.

If you really want to settle down and become a decent editor, the simple solution is to stay away from any article (or part thereof) that deals with LaRouche or his ideas, and stop making personal attacks. For some reason, you find that course of action impossible. I would definitely support a longer block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, accusations made against me by SlimVirgin and Will Beback should be evaluated in light of their shared and strongly held POV. Both of them have now sought out opportunities to block me and re-set my one year ban, on grounds which I do not believe can stand up to scrutiny by neutral administrators. However, no other admin has found fault with my editing. I have not received so much as a complaint, let alone a warning, from anyone other than SlimVirgin and Will Beback, since the LaRouche 2 arbcom decision. In the "Nobs01 and others" decision which they cite, there was no finding of fact against me. And, I am not alone in alleging that these two have abused their admin powers to further a POV-pushing agenda. There have been numerous other complaints against these two; see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin2,Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw (Willmcw being another user name previously used by Will Beback,) WikipediaWikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-17_Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, or Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/03. The present accusations against me should be evaluated by neutral third parties. --HK 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Far from having "sought out opportunities to block" you, this is, I believe, the first time I've done so since the case against you 15 months ago. As for your having "not received so much as a complaint" from anyone other than Will and me, it was in fact 172 who asked me to look at your activities at Synarchism, and apart from Will and me, people who have complained to the arbcom about you, resulting each time in remedies against you, have been Snowspinner, Cberlet, Adam Carr, AndyL, and John Kenney, all good editors. In Nobs01 and others, you were placed on indefinite probation, which sounds to me as though the arbcom is tired of seeing the same behavior from you, so for you to conclude that you have "not received so much as a complaint" from anyone other than Will and me is a little misleading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My reference to complaints was with respect to other admins; the arbcom rulings that pertain to me are administered by administrators, not Wikipedia editors in general. My understanding is that 172 agreed to cease functioning as an admin after the second arbitration case against him. Snowspinner initiated the 2nd LaRouche case, but I have not heard from him since that time, and if you will take a look at my post above, what I wrote was "However, no other admin has found fault with my editing. I have not received so much as a complaint, let alone a warning, from anyone other than SlimVirgin and Will Beback, since the LaRouche 2 arbcom decision." This is in fact the case. --HK 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe your ban has been reset three times: once by Snowspinner [13], once by Will, and now once by me. The reason a small number of admins are dealing with you is that we're the ones who are familar with your editing pattern. As I said above, the full-proof way to avoid attention is to stop making personal attacks and to stay away from pages that deal with Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. We have over one million articles, so that shouldn't be so hard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The moment I edit any article, it goes on Will's list of "LaRouche-related articles." I don't recall why Snowspinner re-set my ban, but in the case of Will Beback, it was re-set because of an edit dispute at American System (economics) that had nothing to do with LaRouche. Will Beback and 172 have both adopted the tactic of crying "LaRouche!" whenever one or the other disagrees with me (see Talk:Privatization and Talk:Anti-Defamation League.) In your case, you re-set my ban because of an edit made by another editor, who you then claimed, without proof, was my sockpuppet. I would like this whole business reviewed by a neutral third party. If I were as "disruptive" as you and Will Beback claim, I am certain that other admins would have noticed, regardless of whether they were "familiar with my editing patterns." --HK 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the list of LaRouche related topics is not the same as your edit contributions. The number of redlinks alone should make that clear. It is no coincidence that virtually all of your edits are to topics related to LaRouche. Adding LaRouche theories to unrelated Wikipedia articles is not permitted, but you have persisted in doing so in an disruptive manner. The linkage between Lyndon LaRouche and the American System is well-known, and the particular theory you were adding can be referenced only from LaRouche sources. You have never shown contrition or admitted any wrongdoing in your three ArbCom cases, and it has become characteristic for you to protest your innocence and claim a conspiracy against you. -Will Beback 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I reset your ban because you asked another pro-LaRouche account to revert to your version of a page, where you had minimized criticism of LaRouche, an edit you'd been told violated the arbcom ruling. You must have known that getting someone else to do it was as bad as doing it yourself.

As I keep saying, the way to ensure that Will has nothing else to add to his page of your LaRouche-related edits is not to make any. Don't edit LaRouche pages, or pages about LaRouche-related ideas, or any sentence or paragraph about LaRouche on an unrelated page. And don't encourage other editors to do it for you. Then you'll be abiding by the terms of the three rulings against you: LaRouche 1, LaRouche 2, and the Nobs01 probation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I insist that the claims by Will Beback and SlimVirgin are disingenuous, and I ask that a neutral third party review the facts of the matter. --HK 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out that I, a AFAIK "neutral thrid party" have reviewed "the facts of the matter" and consider SlimVirgin's actions to be justified and correct as I posted on a talk page some days ago. HK seems to have somehow missed this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I have. What talk page would that be? --HK 00:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it on User talk:SlimVirgin: you say that "HK makes no credible answer to the claim of sockpupetry except to say 'it didn't happen.'" My response, there as well as here, is to say the following: "Please note that until some evidence of sockpuppetry is presented, there is not much to which I may respond." Allow me to reiterate that I am asking a neutral admin to take a look, also, at the decision by Willmcw/Will Beback, back in September, to re-set my ban, based on the theory that a reference to the Centennial Exposition is somehow "promotion of LaRouche." The instructions at the top of this page indicate that this is an appropriate location to complain about the conduct of admins. Note also that although SlimVirgin has twice claimed in this discussion that I asked BirdsOfFire to revert specific edits, you can see for yourself on his talk page that I said only that I wished to call the article Synarchism to his attention. The idea that he then became my "meatpuppet" is highly speculative and a reflection of SlimVirgin's relentless POV pushing. --HK 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a neutral admin to look at the block and resetting of the ban. A neutral admin looked at it, and agrees it was done correctly. Now you're arguing with the neutral admin. It's also disingenuous of you to deny that you posted to the BirdsOfFire account page that the account should revert to your version at Synarchism. Clearly, by saying you wanted to "call it to his attention," you were not asking him to revert against you. The arbcom ruling is clear: any account making the same pattern of edits as you, and judged by admins to be a sockpuppet of yours, should be blocked indefinitely. We don't need technical evidence. But in addition, that account and yours both edit from the same two IP ranges. It's therefore not clear to me what evidence you're asking to see. You know what IP ranges you edit from. So whatever they are, BirdsOfFire edits from the same ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that SlimVirgin and Will Beback have adopted an impermissably broad interpretation of the Arbcom decision known as "Nobs01 and others". This decision names Cognition and myself as "LaRouche editors"[14]; no other parties are named, and SlimVirgin and Will Beback have arrogated to themselves the authority to apply this ruling to other editors, as an excuse to apply administrative sanctions during edit disputes. At Talk:LaRouche Movement, BirdsOfFire posted the following comment: "I have looked over a number of the LaRouche articles on Wikipedia. It seems that there are more of them than necessary. It also seems that they are dominated by a small number of editors, who have something of a jihad against LaRouche. These editors seem to have done a bit of bullying toward newcomers. I think that those of you who belong to this group should have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and allow these articles to become a bit more neutral. LaRouche is controversial and a bit of a weirdo -- just quote him, let his words speak for themselves, don't feel that you have to strengthen your case by a lot of theorizing and speculation about what he really means." To extrapolate from this that he is a "LaRouche activist" seems like a stretch; even if it could be demonstrated that BirdsOfFire is a "LaRouche activist," which he says he is not, the ArbCom decisions do not authorize SlimVirgin to block him. SlimVirgin and Will Beback have also threatened to use similar tactics against User:Northmeister.--HK 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BirdsOfFire made 62 edits to articles, at least 45 of which were pro-LaRouche (and some of those on unrelated pages may have been too, but I haven't checked), and he made 27 edits to talk, all of which were pro-LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This provides the interested bystander with another glimpse into SlimVirgin's POV agenda. By her reasoning, such things as asking for verifiable sources at LaRouche articles, or posting the POV dispute tag, are classified as "pro-LaRouche edits." These articles are full of speculation and original research; to ask that they be cleaned up is not "pro-LaRouche," it's just responsible editing (here is the edit that got BirdsOfFire permanently blocked.) But to persons intent on making these articles into a soapbox, asking that they comply with WP:V is "disruptive." --HK 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This interested bystander is impressed by SlimVirgin's continuing courtesy and impartiality in the face of constant attacks on her character. Snottygobble 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What the Herschelkrustofsky rulings say

• (Nobs01) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year." [15]
• (LaRouche 2)"Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." [16]
• "Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way." [17]
• "Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect." [18]
• "If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles ..." [19]
• (LaRouche1) "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as 'promotion' of Lyndon LaRouche." [20]

User:Deuterium

This user's userpage, [21], is basically just an attack on group of editors that he has a problem with. I think this is rather inappropriate. Also this user has twice placed this propaganda website [22] in the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy article. I think he may just be unfamilar with wikiquette so I think he should just recieve a warning, but since I have been involved in a conflict with him I'm sure I would appear to have ulterior motives if I warned him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Only the vandals and the admins try to use policy, and he's certainly no admin. But Jayjg was perfectly justified in using WP:RS to delete the blog link, so I can't see what Deut's real problem is Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sceptre. Please see Talk:Anti-Arabism for a discussion about that blog; it's by a well-known professional journalist, which is allowed by WP:RS. JayJG is now arguing it violates WP:EL. I wonder what's next? Deuterium 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it violates both WP:RS and WP:EL. Blogs should only be linked to in highly specific circumstances which this doesn't meet. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, as you can see from the page, I'm not making personal attacks; I'm factually commentating on content in a civil manner, which is specifically condoned by WP:NPA.

Furthermore, lying about an editor (by saying I had twice included IRMEP in that page, when I have _never_ done so, check the history) _is_ a violation of WP:CIV. This is exactly the reason why I am keeping track of this kind of stuff :). Deuterium 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah but the attack pages are not factual, and you have even now accused another editor of "lying", which is yet another violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides the hit list like nature of his user page, this user has also created a page including my name User:Deuterium/Timothy Usher for the sole purpose of attacking me. I ask that this page be deleted as soon as possible, and this user - almost certainly another sock puppet of sock puppeteer Hrana98/24.7.141.159/216.118.97.211 - be banned.

Also note his recent "minor edits" after he's been caught.Timothy Usher 07:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that you haven't stopped attack people critical of your position. I encourage the editors here to look up my IP address so we can settle this once and for all. 128.97.248.132 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake for not signing in. Hrana98 17:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The strongest evidence for the identity of these users is a shared discourse, common themes and a common style. This will be obvious to anyone with the free time and the stomach to read through Talk:Islamism/Archive 4. Just one among a good number of obvious and telling examples:

24.7.141.159: “It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up.”[[23]]

128.97.247.141: “It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation.”[[24]]

The second is, like the Hrana log-in as seen on this page, a UCLA address which, by my admittedly meagre technical understanding, I would guess is the user operating through a proxy server (such as the one provided to access restricted library materials?) from his home cable account. Just a thought. I don't understand these things well enough to say what is going on technically, but from the standpoint of style and discourse, it's clear that this is the same individual.

Deuterium shares all the observed points of style and affects the same mean-spirited and domineering troll-like approach, and in two of three examples he gives of my own purported misbehavior, he is carrying User:24.7.141.159's water. Timothy Usher 07:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to observe that User:Hrana98 has arrived on this page without being notified by User:Deuterium on the talk page that the discussion is going on here. Pecher ^Talk 07:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been monitoring Timothy Usher's talk page knowing he has a bone to pick with me. The logical thing was to follow Tom's postings on Timothy's talk page. Furthermore, reading Pecher's talk page also made it clear where to go. It lead me here. ALT + F and typing my user name alerted me to this post. I'll continue to monitor these pages as long as both of your are prosecuting your little war. Hrana98 09:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a little research by geolocating the IP address presented via the database at HostIP. Its not surprising that I'm in Los Angeles. Library computers on campus require a user login and that should clearly alert you to my status on campus. User:24.7.141.159 is located in Sacramento, CA. User:216.118.97.211 is located in Middletown, IA. Are both of you (Pecher and Timothy Usher) saying that I'm traveling around the country and I'm these two people and User:Deuterium? If you are, then either I'm a schizoid nut with a private jet and tons of time on my hand or, more plausibly, both of you are being paranoid and fueling troll-like attacks upon me. I only say this because both of you have been resorting to attacks on me in hope of having me banned. Hrana98 10:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As you are aware, UCLA has a set of restricted library materials accessible to students, staff and associates by logging in from one's home address, at which point you get a UCLA proxy address and go from there. Please excuse me if my technical terms are somehow inaccurate. As for 216.118.97.211 his style is nothing like your own excepting the hostility - blocked after second post - but the user's edit history shows that two of four posts [[25]], [[26]] were done unambiguously on your behalf, while a third [[27]]was to hide the observation that this address was acting as your sock puppet. I concede it's possible that this is only an associate of yours (as you claimed when you said re the earlier 216.118.97.211 comment that the page was "being monitored on an outside forum" [[28]]), but even so it's disturbing that you should solicit such edits from your associates.Timothy Usher 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is 3:30 in the morning, do you honestly expect me to sit on campus at this hour or am I not allowed to come home to rest and sleep according to you? Are you going to point me to a Wikipedia policy page to defend this illogical position? Furthermore, Sacramento, CA is 400 miles north of here. Are you saying that I commute to campus every morning via a 400 mile journey? Middletown, IA is 1,800 miles away. Are you now claiming that I'm making that journey nightly too? Give me a break. Maybe you should also claim that I've figured out how to build a Star Trek transporter now so we can revise the wikipedia article on this development. You should also remember that just because someone agrees with or defends me is not an associate of mine. I've never solicited anyone to defend me. Yet, I find it alarming to see that a large number of Administrators have been contacted on your behalf to fight your battles. You've clearly been dealt severe set backs by users who have called you out on your postings. Instead of taking them on in a productive manner (which I encourage you to do), you're trying to censor me and a handful of other editors by wrongly claiming we are all the same people. Please stop this vandetta you have because it is leaving a black eye on this community.

I'd like the Administrators here to see User:Timothy Usher's style of arguing. He starts off with unsubstaniated claims and when they are disproven, he makes even more outlandish claims. This sort of attitude has destroyed the Talk:Islamism page and he is now using his tactics to prosecute a war against me. I look forward to action being taken which addresses my complaints. Hrana98 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

24.7.141.159: “It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up.”[[29]]

128.97.247.141: “It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation.”[[30]] Timothy Usher 10:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you now saying that I'm 128.97.247.141? Can someone keep count of this for me? I can't keep straight exactly how many people I am supposed to be. May I remind you that our campus has 35,000 people out of which at least a couple dozen people (that I know of) know about your (in)famous reputation here via a message board. Whether they choose to participate against you is at their discretion and I, in no way, can be held responsible for anyone elses actions. Would you please answer my questions above. Am I allowed to come home at night? Do I make 400 and 1800 mile daily commutes to campus? Do you have proof that I'm soliciting the entire internet to paint you for who you are? Thanks. Hrana98 11:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As if it weren’t already completely obvious, after a few days absence, this user has returned with two of his socks, one on the discussion page[31], and one in the article[32]. See also [33] Judge the tone of the comments for yourselves. Timothy Usher 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Gator1

Recently promoted to Admin, Gator1 has deleted his user and talk pages after a series of harassment emails were sent by a range blocked editor who had been doing repeated vandalisms to the Phaistos Disc article. IP used a series of dynamic IP accounts and was POV pushing...possible lobbying attempt or similar in late March. Gator emailed me the following:

The vandal stalker with the blocked IP range of 80.90.38.0/80.90.39.149 found out who I was and where I worked and sent a letter to the firm implying legal action and asking the firm if I blocked him as a member of the firm or my own and complaining about freedom of speech in a blatant attempt to frighten me and get me in trouble at work. It freaked them out and I had to look like an ass explaining myself. So I'm done dude, forget this.Please feel free to post this on a noticeboard and see if anyone has ideas. I don't want to have anything to so with this guy as I am afraid of what he'll do next.

Series of blocks: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] and so on. Anyone have any suggestions?--MONGO 00:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Head to Canada? Actually there is no right to free speech on a privately owned website, so there is not much this person can do, at least legally.... But they can harass you, which is probably illegal anyway, so... Prodego ^talk 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so...anything more helpful than suggesting an exodus?--MONGO 00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Ask BDA? Anyone else have a more helpful suggestion? Prodego ^talk 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Email the ISP? NSLE _(T+C) at 00:20 UTC (2006-04-08)

I was going to him (Abramson), but he's away for the entire month of April. Well, I just wanted folks to see this and to remember to be leery of giving out too much personal info and to see if aside from the six month range block on this IP range, if Wikipedia itself has any kind of recourse. Emailing the ISP is a fair idea.--MONGO 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Send emails in support of Gator1 to his company, telling what great a guy he has been, and we support his actions? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Blackcap (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely support that, but where does Gator work? (And how did the vandal find out?) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that sounds like a really terrible idea. Don't mess with the man's work unless he asks you to. His boss probably doesn't give a hoot about whether Gator is a good wikipedian. He might very well care that Gator does a lot of editing here during the day. So, keep your nose out of his work unless he asks for help. As to how he was identified, his user page specified his law specialty, his town, and his college. Probably not real hard to figure out from there with Google's help. Derex 07:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at BDA's contribs, he is not really away. Prodego ^talk 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...I sent him an email. Lord Voldemort has a decent suggestion too, but interestingly I have no idea where Gator works...I wonder how the vandal found out.--MONGO 00:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fuckin hell, that's awful. Not much we can do, though. This is of course the reason to try to keep complete anonymity. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We definitely should contact the ISP. They're supposed to deal with abuse complaints like this. And real-life stalking is definitely abuse. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed Gator and linked him to this conversation, he may not be readin it now, but it will possibly be of help to him in ths matter, and I appreciate all the advice. If anyone has any other suggestions, they are welcome of course. This is not a situation I deal with much.--MONGO 00:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Really I am on a break (or at least trying to be - compare my editcount from this month to last if you don't believe me. Frankly, I think we should call Jimbo on this one. I'm in a similar situation to Gator1 - if someone were to contact my work about something that happened here, they might freak out as well. Jimbo, of course, is immune to such ministrations. I am not particularly familiar with cyberstalking statutes, although I know they exist. I'd advise Gator1 to get a copy of that letter (if he has not already got one) and peruse it for any claims that would amount to defamation. I do not know that there is any precedent to look to, but a Wikipedia admin might be considered a limited-purpose public figure for the purposes of defamation and invasion of privacy, meaning that someone making a public complaint about an admin's conduct as an admin would have to be shown to have actual malice for a cause of action to exist. If this person is making any untrue statement while advocating that Gator1 should lose his job or suffer some similar consequence, that might be enough to show actual malice. BDAbramson T 01:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Silly lawyer speak. Kill all the lawyers. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not the wisest of comments at this time and in this context, to be frank. --kingboyk 04:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

BDAbramson has contacted Jimbo on his page. I hope that Jimbo takes this personaly and gets involved. As the collectors of human knowlege, we can NOT let our users, especially ones who are protecting information to the highest degree, to be intimidated. Wikipedia is a community, and hopefully a community that will respond to this grave breach of privacy. --Mboverload 04:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. Concur wholeheartedly. --kingboyk 04:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am hoping that someone is looking into how they figured out where Gator1 worked and who he was? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, a quick look at the linked logs shows it's probably Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the focus of the dispute is Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (I see also some edits to Proto-Ionians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). It might be interesting to watchlist these. --cesarb 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on the harassment, it might be wise to protect Gator1's user page and talk page. I suspect that stalker will try to add more messages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It has just been added to the protected against recreation list by an alert admin. --Mboverload 04:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone put this on the mailing list yet or told Jimbo? very disturbing situation, perhaps Jimbo or someone at the Foundation would be able to help Gator out here.--Alhutch 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I sent it to WikiEN, but it's still awaiting approval. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I just sent it to the mailing list too. Cabalstrike!! --Cyde Weys 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why am I being moderated, as you appear not to be? I know I'm new there, but I'm a fricken sysop! :-P —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just saw that BDA posted it on Jimbo's talk page too.--Alhutch 03:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Gator's a lawyer himself, iirc. He's dropped enough information that a determined person could figure out where he works. Things like this make me think that the identity of the blocking admin needs to be hidden - instead of saying "you have been blocked by..." say "you have been blocked, click here to contact the blocking admin". A person would still be able to track down the block via the block log, but it makes it harder to draw the ire of the person blocked. Guettarda 03:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. This makes me sick. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does, there have been several times over the last couple months that blocks I've done resulted in scary reactions via email. Not sure what's to be done but it makes me wonder, I feel for him. Rx StrangeLove 03:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are with Gator1, I hope nothing of further disruption occurs in his personal life. I would like to suggest two things, though. I recently had an incident similar to this whereas I posted personal information on Wikipedia and was threatened to have it removed immediately, thus did everything I could to eliminate it. In Gator1's case, I noticed two things that should be done to complete Gator's complete removal from Wikipedia, its mirror sites, and other archives, for his personal safety. (1)—I noticed his talk page archives are still intact, and believe they should be immediately removed given the original talk page is deleted. (2)—A major problem I had with my incident was Google's cached versions of the personal information I published. A quick review of Google search revealed that both Gator1's user page (which contains personal information) as well as his talk page and its archives are completely intact in their pre-deleted form, under the Cached versions of these pages. I recommend someone visit Google's "AUTOBOT" which would immediately remove the cached versions from their site, or wait a few days for their automatic removal..thought it may take up to 4 weeks. Sorry for the difficulties, Gator1, and I'm sorry you are leaving Wikipedia for good. Good luck and I hope you can perhaps make a new user name and visit. Cheers, . — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for pointing this out, Happy Camper has just deleted the talk page archives and other subpages.--Alhutch 04:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of any service I can, I completely understand the situation Gator1 faces, and only hope to aid in ensuring his personal info. be eradicated as much as possible. I have taken the liberty of visiting Google's cached-page removal site, where I am using a previously created account with Google to personally request the deletion of the cached versions of both Gator1's user page and talk page using their automated system. Last time I requested the removal of the article I created (User:1929Depression/R...) —censored for privacy—, it took about 2 days for complete eradication. I hope it's that soon for Gator's pages as well. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks very much for your help with a bad situation.--Alhutch 04:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we go further and do a checkuser on those IPs and make sure there aren't any more sockpuppet accounts related to this incident editing on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 04:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion, HappyCamper, however I have run into an obstacle concerning the Google cache pages that I was planning to request for deletion from the Google archive. It is a problem that only a Wikipedia administrator can fix, and I was hoping that you or perhaps User:Alhutch could assist me. While I was at Google requesting the removal of Gator1's user page and his talk page, the automated system noted that User:Gator1 and User talk:Gator1 did not have the appropriate META tags required for deletion of the cached pages. With my previous experience on the matter, I am sure of the fact that the only way for a page to acquire these tags is either to delete the pages completely at Wikipedia, whereas the tags would be entered into the HTML automatically, or to contact Jimbo Wales and request that he alter the HTML codec himself (he being the only person with access to this). Since the first option is easier, I suggest an administrator do so now so I can complete my request for the cached page removal. You'll note that both User:Gator1 and User talk:Gator1 have this template : {{deletedmiscpage}} rather than the pages just being removed, as traditional, so I suggest they just be removed. Thanks to the administrator who does this, I'm sure Gator1 would appreciate it as having your personal info. accessible on Google is less than desirable. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 05:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The only real option is to completely blank the pages. Technically, a deleted page cannot be protected, and I do not want to remove the protection if the stalker is going to come back. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought that they were protected anyway? Regardless, this is a difficult tradeoff, but I would be inclined to help Gator1 have is stuff removed from the Google cache first. If another administrator wants to restore that single edit, (or simply add another tag again), please feel free to do so. However, I think a better alternative is to keep very vigilant for a little bit, while hopefully in 2 days the Google cache clears out. After 48 hours, we can replace those tags. At least, doing so will give this google cache clearing a chance. We can accomodate this I think. --HappyCamper 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with HappyCamper on this one, I successfully processed the requests through Google to remove the cached pages immediately, and they should be gone within a couple of days. I think we owe it to Gator1 to play it safe and keep these pages deleted until the Google cached versions are eradicated. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 05:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection is automatically removed once you delete the pages. However, it does prevent anon IPs from starting the pages. The problem is that an established user can still leave a message on Gator1's talk page (or even the user page). So the best way now to deal with this issue is that we still can put the pages on our watchlists. 10qwerty 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish Gator1 were here to comment on the best course of action, but personally I think it's best to assess the Google caches first, because that's where a stalker could pick up on his personal information. Restoring the User:Gator1 and User talk:Gator1 pages would result in Google's BOTS to ignore the requests to remove the cached pages, thus they (including their prominence as the top search results when someone searches for "Gator1") would continue to be available through Google for up to 4 weeks. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 05:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now, I have the pages on my watchlist. If I do see someone leave a msg, I will delete it. But I have not option to protect it because it is in fact delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how Google handles this request and so take your (CrazyInSane's) word for it. Or anyway I try to. But I don't fully follow the logic. More broadly, any statement here that it would be better for X not to happen will I presume be avidly read by our friend allegedly in the vicinity of Luxembourg, who will then do his or her best to make X happen. Further, I of course know nothing of the content of any email (and don't want to know it), but I did do a little looking around in the user and talk page history and found very little information there about Gator. I learned one thing about Gator that I (perhaps naively) find entirely innocuous, and I saw considerable evidence of the user or users of several IP numbers being obnoxious or worse. I am not versed in law, but I wonder whether it might actually help if these obnoxious messages were, if not in plain sight, at least accessible via the history tab. But I defer to others, and particularly to the wishes of Gator. -- Hoary 06:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RIPE Whois database query results - allocated to some people in Luxembourg. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:10 UTC (2006-04-08)

Gator disclosed more to me in his email than I can share (my decision, not his) but the situation is not good apparently. Gator did tell me he thought that IP was originating from Belgium or Luxembourg. I do believe he has definitely left the project, and expressed his great disappointment that he has had to do so. I have directed him to this section and hope he is watching and reading all the excellent contributions everyone has posted. On his behalf, I want to wish all of you a very fond thank you.--MONGO 05:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we all understand his difficult decision taken, personally I'd like to wish him the best. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:48 UTC (2006-04-08)

This situation must be taken very seriously as the project is doomed if excellent editors can just be driven out by people who obviously have no interest in building an encyclopedia. When I was a sys admin (in the "real" world) I had a normal user account and did all my work requiring special access from a separate "system manager" account. For me it was primarily so I had an unpriviliged account I could use to check if I'd messed up but this harrassment of Gator1 does argue for a division of the admin duties from normal editing. Maybe an admin forum for discussing blocks etc could be created which would not be visible to anons and new editors? Whatever something must be done to stop this happening again and I can only hope that Gator1 can find a way of returning safely. Hope he's reading this as I'm sure he needs a boost at the moment. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 07:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to read all this, and hope to send Gator1 a supportive e-mail later today. AnnH ♫ 07:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gator is one of an increasing number of admins who've been threatened, stalked, or abused on Wikipedia, on other websites, and in real life, because of their admin actions. I agree witih Sophia that it's time to do something about it, but it's hard to know what. A few people tried to set up an admin-only board a few months ago (where non-admins could read it, but not post to it), but it was quickly shot down as unwiki-like, so a board that non-admins can't even see likely wouldn't work, although there's an admin-only IRC channel I believe (or there was: I've never used it, so I don't know whether it still exists). Even with such a board in place, users would still get to know who blocked them, and we're often called to account and have to post here about blocks anyway. I can offer no solutions, except that the lesson for people who want to become admins in future is to make sure that your screen name is not connected in any way to your real-life identity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion after I took a quick glance at the deleted history, Gator unfortunately gave away too much information on his user page – enough information that a determined person with enough time could easily look up on Google and other online directories. That is another thing future admins have to watch out for. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is just ridiculous, what is wrong with a person when they find it neccesary to email some poor guy's boss and complain. However, I'm not sure that other people emailing his boss in support of Gator would be the best course of action. The only way I think it would be beneficial would be if the person was influential enough that Gator's boss would recognize the editor's real-life work.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What an awful situation. This suggestion may be totally out of line - if it is, please forgive me - but I infer from what Mongo has suggested that some of the clues to Gator!'s identity may be found in article talk / other user talk spaces. If Mongo (or another informed editor) knows where these clues are to be found, could they be expunged to prevent anyone else who may think that it would be amusing to 'copycat stalk' Gator1? Colonel Tom 08:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that reopening to delete areas that may have personal information may offset the google cache as described above...admittedly, I am completely ignorant of these issue. I have watched Gator almost since he first started editing, and I don't recall him making any comments aside from what he does and in what State he does it. I never remember him posting his Email, home address phone number or using his actual name...maybe he accidentally responded to an Email from this vandal and that gave up his real name, which I have gotten from him when he Emails me. I set up a "bogus" Email account for Wikipedia, that does not give my actual name, and the Email is through Yahoo...I highly recommend others do this as well, through whatever service they use. I don't want to alarm people but just trying to emphasize the importance of privacy if indeed you work a potentially sensitive career or have a particular need for animity. Gator did ask me to block this editor before...I just retrieved a lengthy email from him dated 3/28/06 and am scanning it to see if posting it here is any help.--MONGO 09:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the email, it is actually a long comment sent to Gator by another editor in regards to this IP vandal. Gator wanted my feedback on whther I thought his six month blocks were fair, and sent me the Email he had received from another Wikipedian. Apparently, Gator has run afoul of a particularily resourceful and hostile Usenet veteran with a nack for privacy invasion. I may ask the original emailer if he minds if I forward the information to Jimbo or the Foundation...because this means there is actually not one but two people who may have been forced out from editing due to threats in real life by this vandal.--MONGO 09:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Same situation as posted in early March, prior to Gator's involvement...[39]--MONGO 09:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

One way may be to advise new editors to keep their real ID's private and warn/delete personal information on sight. Maybe a wiki project on editor anonymity is needed to see what the community thinks. Also WP:BOLD could be modified to make it clear that whilst you need to be bold with article information and editing you should not be so with revealing your true identity. We need to warn users when they start as most breaches of privacy are likely to happen when they are new and keen and by the time they are established and want to go for admin status the damage will already be done. The e-mail idea by MONGO is a good one and should be recommended too. Most kids are now taught about internet security/anonymity at school (at least in the UK) but anyone out of their teens is unlikely to have learned about this and may not realise the potential problems. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This will mean totally re-writing Wikipedia:Username, which currently says "The best username is typically either your real name, or a longstanding Internet pen name." Since that page is policy, it can't be changed lightly, but will require a good deal of consensus. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've thought that that should be changed for a long time, and would certainly support a change to something that emphasized the risk of making your real name public on a project like this (or the internet in general, really). As an aside to Sophia, I would say WP:BOLD doesn't really need to be amended, as it's entirely about updating pages, and not boldness just all around the place. Blackcap (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As one of the editors of Phaistos disc, which was routinely disrupted by User:Rose-mary until Gator1 imposed a six-month block (for threatening to contact the employers of another editor), I would like to express my thanks. I hope he will see this. I hope this can be resolved. Septentrionalis 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything that encourages people to make their real identities visible in a project that attracts strong POV's must be reconsidered. As for WP:BOLD I'm aware it's about articles but thinking like a newbie user it could give the wrong impression. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Latest email from Gator...he doesn't want to mention it at his workplace again, hoping they will put it behind them:

I really don't want to bring it up with them again. If I can get through this week without being fired, I'm happy. I am watching the AN/I page and I did give you the IP range, to do with as the community feels is appropriate. To clarify: this nutcase sent an actual snail mail letter directly to the firm, not an e-mail. Which only made it worse I think. It stated that a made up committee in Luxembourg had nominated me for some sarcastic award for blocking the IP range, that the committee was going to go to court and make a stink about it in the papers and wanted to know if I was acting as an associate of the firm or by myself (which freaked them out the most). Anyway, I'll lt you know what my job does with me. I'd just like to know how he got my name. Thanks, G

--MONGO 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar situation where a blocked user threatened to contact my employer, because I was occasionally editing from work without logging in (work doesn't allow cookies). I have since stopped editing from work. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry to read all this. The stalker, as you will see on the Talk:Phaistos archives, has long plagued Usenet as "grapheus" and has actually managed to sue his nemesis there (although he didn't press charges in the end). Gator has blocked him on WP for making threats of real-life harassment to another editor. I think that yes, now would be the time to contact the guy's ISP and ask them to terminate the guy's account. Tell them that their entire range is blocked from editing en-wiki because of that one bad egg. The stalker has shown extreme resilience on Usenet, pursuing his single cause with manic determination for years. Gator was brave to apply the block single-handedly, but I think the lesson from this should not be to hide your identity because there are mad people. It may mean you should be extra careful when editing on company time, but I have a hard time imagining a reason why Gator's employer should be concerned about some guy from Luxemburgh complaining about him having performed an administrative action on a private website where he is authorized to perform such actions. I do hope you will be fine, Gator; in the meantime, if Jimbo can be bothered, he could lift Gator's block and re-instate it himself, so Gator's name will not continue to show up as the blocking admin and there will be no doubt whatsoever about the wiki-wide agreement on blocking the stalker. dab (ᛏ) 00:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether we should create a list of admins willing to take on blocks of extra-difficult people such as this guy. The list could comprise admins who know there's nothing to link their Wikipedia identities to their real-life ones, or who don't care if there is. In that way, other admins who are worried about being tracked down, or who've already been threatened, could discreetly contact one of the admins on the list and ask him/her to take over. There are drawbacks to this (because it creates a list of perceived tough and not-so-tough admins), but it might still be better than the current situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a very good idea. I'd been trying to think what might or should be our answer to this problem, and such a list of Wikipedia:Admins willing to handle off-wiki disruptive editors seems like a good answer. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Might it not be better to have someone at the Foundation issue blocks in these cases? (There's a fella called Danny I believe?) I don't think any admin should have to risk "real word" strife on behalf of Wikipedia for whom we serve, lest it not be forgotten, as volunteers. --kingboyk 01:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Directing all the difficult blocks to Danny would mean he'd end up being targeted, and he's identifiable. A group of completely anonymous admins, on the other hand, would be more or less immune. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Two posts from User:71.139.190.74 have been removed, you'll have to check the history if you want to read them. I'm not sure if it's somebody trying to be helpful or (more probably) the "complainant". In the process of removing edit #2 I accidentally reverted SlimVirgin (who removed edit #1), sorry about that, I think I fixed it :) --kingboyk 00:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

MyNomenclature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) originally posted here claiming to have done it (pretty incoherently) and was reverted and blocked. They then left this message, and this; looks like the same person as just posted here. They seem to be trolling; note that MyNomenclature was banned as a sockpuppet. Shimgray | talk | 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The above could be User:Amorrow aka User:Pinktulip, given that he links to Amorrow's webpage. He's the one who's been harassing a number of female Wikipedians, on and off-site. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sean's conclusion was that it was Amorrow, and "MyNomenclature" is beyond reasonable doubt the same person as the IPs - but it's bizzare they changed their line of argument. Clearly trolling, rather than the actual person responsible, in my opinion... Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does not read like Rose-mary (?grapheus); and the content (that if Gator1 needs advice he should look to a senior attorney licensed in his own state) is not unreasonable. Septentrionalis 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Trolling aside, I feel they fail to distinguish between Gator's career as an attorney, and his actions on Wikipedia as an administrator and as a member of the Mediation Committee. These actions are paralegal, but not judicial. Wikipedia is not a court of law. I agree that Gator should look to his colleagues for legal advice; however, what we discuss here concerns actions on Wikipedia. It should not be construed as legal advice, but may still be helpful. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 01:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"MyNomenclature" and 70.231.180.4, who left message on my page and Sean's are Amorrow for sure. I don't think User:71.139.190.74 is Amorrow. But I don't know that it matters. FloNight ^talk 01:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked IP range 71.141.0.0/24 for trolling MONGO regarding the Gator1 case. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:44 UTC (2006-04-09)

Oh. I just sprotected MONGO's pages, I might as well unprotect them, then, I guess. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

I blocked the IP range three months, but a WHOIS returns a San Francisco (!) ISP (Abuse contact abuse(at)swbell(dot)net). NSLE _(T+C) at 01:48 UTC (2006-04-09)

Are you sure that the /24 is the right netblock? The earlier stuff on MONGO's page was from 3 different subnets; 71.141.1, .30, and .224; the proper size would be a /16 netblock ... and, clearly, this is someone hitting DHCP'ed address space, and that's a mighty big block to block. Georgewilliamherbert 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Was told in IRC I'd blocked a bigger range than needed, but I'd rather err on the safe side (and honestly, I didn't really take a look at the exact IPs). I defer judgment of a smaller range/shorter block to another admin. NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 05:57 UTC (2006-04-09)

The /24 will be ineffective against any of the 3 addresses they used so far, and against 255/256 of the possible ones he'd come up with in the future out of the same sized parent netblock, unfortunately. What's the policy on DHCPed addresses within large netblocks? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?. Georgewilliamherbert 06:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

NLSE: Please just remove the block on 71.141.0.0/24 becaues it is utterly pointless. It is part of a giant, complex American pool of IP addresses that are near-randomly distributed on a moment-to-moment basis by SBC. Perhaps in your Asian hierarchy, with its emphasis on conformity and hierarchy, you can do a meaningful block on a /24, but here in America, where freedom is the basis of our success, your block just makes you looks stupid. Here, if you do not believe me, take a look at this page: http://www.scconsult.com/sbclist.shtml . And let me tell you: for the hundred of thousands of wealthy, bill-paying SBC DSL customers, when they reboot their router, they get a vastly different IP address from a vast and fragmented range. Let me also note that SFNC21 (San Francisco-21) and PLTN13 (Pleasanton-13) are, in many ways, merged into one huge pool for San Francisco Bay area SBC customers. Your block just shows your inexperience with how the Internet works. For you own sake, please just remove your ignorant block. It means, for all practical purposes, zero effect on your target, and will be almost 100% "collateral damage". -- Sillymemine 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You do know that attempting to relate the concepts of "conformity and hierarchy" and "freedom" in a society to a technical problem "just makes you look stupid", right? Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my child-Lee, but you see NSLE did not "read the directions" before he took his hate-based actions from his tiny fake-democracy one-party island and he did it wrong:

01:43, 9 April 2006, NSLE (Talk) blocked 71.141.0.0/24 (contribs) (expires 01:43, 9 July 2006) (apologies to legitimate users affected, due to an ongoing harassment/legal threats problem this IP range is blocked.)

• Thanks everybody...lots of good comments on this matter and I thank those that helped watch my talk page. I think I will sign on as a "tough" admin...no problem, and I don't care if my identity is known. Does the foundation need to take care of contacting the ISP of this harassing editor? I am not familiar with this.--MONGO 05:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Legal advice

I'm also a lawyer and I'm willing to do some legal research on this incident, if U.S. law applies. (I don't have competence in any other country.) It would help enormously to know which jurisdiction's law applies. (Some of the points BDA raised flow from the First Amendment, and are standard throughout the U.S., but the incident also raises some issues as to which state laws probably vary somewhat.) Perhaps someone could email me privately with (1) the state in which Gator's workplace is located (I probably have no use for any more precise information); and, if known, the states in which (2) the sender of the threatening letter and (3) the headquarters of that person's ISP are located. I'm not an admin but I'll treat any such information sent to me as a confidential attorney-client communication. I realize that, even if Gator has a cause of action against the malefactor, Gator might choose not to pursue it, for fear of causing more trouble at his workplace. JamesMLane t c 07:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've already got that covered. --HappyCamper 10:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rose-mary returns

The Gator1 vandal is editing anonymously as User:80.90.38.97; in this edit on Talk:Phaistos Disc decipherment claims. Note that this is one of the IP's Rose-mary has already used, as the contribution history for the IP will show. The edit itself is only persistent argument against consensus; but I would rather not edit with this person. Septentrionalis 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Admins willing to make difficult blocks

I've created the page I mentioned above and I've added my own name. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd add mine except I get far more of them already than I can deal with ;-) Perhaps we could tag it with WP:BADCOP and WP:WORSECOP - David Gerard 21:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User:StarHeart adding insults and personal remarks to Police state

Could someone please look into User:StarHeart's conduct on Police state? He has added a few condescending personal remarks to the article, including this one:

"Note: This may come as a suprise to you adolescents living sheltered lives, but books should be based on REALITY, not the other way around. If you ever spent more than an hour away from your invaluable keyboards you would know that. Yes, boys and girls. Factual statements can ACTUALLY be based on EXPERIENCE, rather than just being based upon a BOOK (which appears to be the case in your pathetic life)."

See diff: [40] Rhobite 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He's also been quite liberal in making them directly. Not satisfied in placing his offensive rant to me on his talkpage (Apparently I'm an expert on video games. Who knew?), he also took the liberty of sending it to me directly via wikipedia email. siafu 05:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've have also been personally attacked (just to give everyone a fuller idea of this colourful character). For examples, see [[41]] (search "stick your nose") and [[42]] (search "get a life"). Lundse 08:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized my userpage tonite. To be fair, user may not know the difference between article pages and talk pages. Appears that way. Herostratus 07:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Defamation and Vandalism

In addition to this which has yet to be addressed, a different anonIP, but I believe the same user, 69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has now taken to vandalising my UserPage and reverting nonsense warnings on my talk page. This is a clear attempt to slander my good name. In addition as Thatcher stated above, the AnonIP could very well be User:Eyeonvaughan who is currently blocked (i think) for his initial defamation of my character. I very strongly request that serious action be taken. - pm_shef 04:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours. —Guanaco 04:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to keep an IP hopper out by blocking, though, and it carries a high risk of collateral damage. Since it doesn't look from the history as if you're in the habit of getting much in the way of legitimate edits from anons, temporarily semiprotecting your pages might be an alternative. If you get any more harassment from anon IPs, feel free to contact me and I'll do that, unless anybody here has a major objection. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

Molobo blocked for disruptive edit warring

On March 29, Molobo (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week for his umpteenth 3RR violation. Since that time he's carried on a huge amount of edit wars across a number of articles, not violating 3RR in any one of them, but coming close and certainly violating the spirit of if (which is to stop disruptive edit wars) by doing it on such a wide scale. As a result, I've taken the possibly unusual step of blocking him for a month again for what I see as very egregious and disruptive conduct, and, while that is up for review, I suggest that we consider a more permanent block. Note that I haven't blocked his most frequent counterpart in the edit war, Sciurinæ (talk · contribs), despite similar disruption, mostly because I don't have the energy to look at it after compiling all this (so some other admin probably should). This block on Molobo was prompted by the following. Molobo returns from his block on April 5, and these are some of his edits in the short time since then (these are all in the span of a few days): Soviet partisan, 4 reverts [43] [44] [45] [46]; Province of West Prussia, 4 reverts [47] [48] [49] [50]; Federation of Expellees, 5 reverts [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]; Konrad I of Masovia, 2 reverts [56] [57]; Lucas Watzenrode the Younger, 2 reverts [58] [59]; Polish 74th Infantry Regiment, 4 reverts [60] [61] [62] [63]; Polish contribution to World War II, 4 reverts [64] [65] [66] [67]; Vorkuta, 3 reverts [68] [69] [70]; German 17th Infantry Division, 5 reverts [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]; Selbstschutz, 6 reverts [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]; Free City of Danzig, 2 reverts [82] [83]; German Empire, 2 reverts [84] [85]; Erika Steinbach, 2 reverts [86] [87]; German 4th Panzer Division, 3 reverts [88] [89] [90]; History of Poland (1939–1945), 2 reverts [91] [92]; History of Germany, 2 reverts [93] [94]; Treaty of Oliwa, 2 reverts [95] [96]; Heinz Guderian, 2 reverts [97] [98]; Gdynia, 2 reverts, [99] [100]; Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights, 2 reverts [101] [102]; Danzig Research Society, 2 reverts [103] [104]; Józef Zajączek, 3 reverts [105] [106] [107]; Wrocław, 2 reverts [108] [109]; Warsaw Uprising (1794), 3 reverts [110] [111] [112]; Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, 2 reverts [113] [114]; German Eastern Marches Society, 3 reverts [115] [116] [117]; and this ominous threat to continue revert warring indefinitely: [118]. This is a user who is not being productive at all, and who we ought not put up with any longer. As the last block was a week and had no effect, I've blocked for a month, if at least so that we can take a breather while he's blocked. This block will be Molobo's eleventh block for 3RR or edit warring [119], 2 of which were extend due to evasion. Therefore, I think we should discuss an indefinite block now, for incorrigibility. In any case, admins, please take a look at the situation and tell me what you think. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you've implemented such a long block on the user for violating the spirit (and not the letter) of 3RR, but not on his sparring partner, who, from what you say, is guilty of the same. I think that when one interprets 3RR in such a drastic way, one should take great care to make sure it is applied fairly. Appleseed (Talk) 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis sounds spot-on to me. --Cyde Weys 06:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite block. Molobo appeared on my radar screen when he edited articles about early modern scientists (Nicolaus Copernicus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Johannes Hevelius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Gabriel Fahrenheit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). There are several contentious issues regarding their places of birth/residence and/or nationality, including the infamous Gdanzsikg Gdilemma. In all cases Molobo has repeatedly trivialized the issues, usually by inserting an unequivocal designation of "Polish" somewhere, even when doing so is misleading, inaccurate, biased, or goes against established consensus or explicit warnings against POV pushing. This is a typical edit; note that the article already contained a nuanced discussion of the historical background to the question of Copernicus' nationality when Molobo made that edit. This edit illustrates the same problem. Moreover, Molobo insists on phrasing the debate in terms of verifiability and citing sources, usually referring to the Encyclopedia Britannica to back him up, when the real problem is a fundamental inability or unwillingness to understand and follow the NPOV policy. This smacks of trollish rules-lawyering, and the way things have been going further NPOV and 3RR violations seem inevitable. While an indefinite block could stop all of this, a community imposed editing ban on Poland-related topics, broadly construed, might be sufficient. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete support on the block, this was long overdue. I had negative experiences with this user pretty much since he started editing on Wikipedia. I especially dislike his twisting of historical facts and/or Wikpedia guidelines to support his position, and his edit warring, ignoring any kind of majority unless it is his kind of majority. I would also appreciate a permanent block or a ban from editing Poland and Germany related topics -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever run across Molobo, but from the looks of what Dmcdevit has listed, I think "exhausting the community's patience" certainly applies. Indfblock and be done with it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid since the time we launched Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Molobo, the editor's behaviour degraded to pure trolling and revert warring. Although User:Piotrus attempts to represent Molobo as a valuable contributor and has gone to wheel warring because of that, everyone editing Eastern European topics knows Molobo for a ram weapon to spread nationalism and divisive comments all over Wikipedia. He turns the most innocent topics - such as Ded Moroz or Fyodor Tyutchev - into battlegrounds for incessant and pointless revert warring. For the fate of his only original contributions to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russsian_claims_about_Warsaw_Uprising_1794 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judas of Slavdom. Another "original contribution" of Molobo is a systematic replacement of the word "Slavic" with "of Slavic origins" or "Eastern and South Slavic", as he regards the notions of Slavic unity or "Slavic languages" as an imperialist propaganda. [120] When Molobo is on a reverting spree, it takes the combined efforts of dozen wikipedians from different countries to undo his reverts. It's easy to check his contributions to see that not a single edit of this "precious contributor" (as Piotrus calls him) remains unreverted by one editor or another within an hour or two. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Having handed Molobo several 3RR (escalated) blocks myself to absolutely no effect, and to an outright statement that he plans to edit in precisely the same fasion upon their expiry, I think an indef block is the only sensible option. Incorrigible, unreformable edit warriors are not welcome here. -Splash^talk 13:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick info: Molobo is now editing on the Polish wiki, and gets reverted there frequently, too. -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A sad example of lying used to attack other contributors: [121] In fact I have yet to be "reverted quite often". --Molobo 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (copied here from User talk:Molobo by Chris 73 | Talk)

While my Polish is not good, these edits on the Polish wiki seem to be titled as reverts: [122], [123], [124]. I did not check if other edits have been reverted without an explicit "Revert" comment. Other edits lead to lengthy controversial discussions on Polish wiki talk pages. All of Molobos Polish Wiki contributions are here if someone is interested. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I still think that Molobo is not as evil as many attempt to paint him, and that such a long block should be taken before the ArbCom, in the face of the apparently overwhelming condemnation of his actions by the community, and the apparent consensus that a long block is justified here, I will not dispute this block. Nonetheless I have one question: it takes two to have any revert war: are Molobo's opponents all innocent?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've run into Molobo on German 17th Infantry Division, where edit warring has gone on since January over use of a long quote in the article. There is consensus among everyone except Molobo on omitting the quote, but he keeps inserting it. If this editing behavior extends to all the other articles cited above, then I agree that the block is justified. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A month block seems fair on Molobo. Many of Molobo's frequent opponents are frequent only because they know his character and follow him around. Molobo perhaps understandably feels victimized and paranoid that his views are being suppressed, and is at the point where he probably feels he has nothing to lose. Molobo is not a bad contributor when he refrains from POV pushing. Perhaps a month would be the a ban of the kind of severity Molobo needs to calm down and reassess his own behaviour. A Permaban is very severe, and I doubt it would do much good, as he would undoubtedly come back with a new identity. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This block should have been expected all along as well as Piotrus' followup comment that this should have beed done via ArbCom and otherwise unfair. The ideal world solution would be an ArbCom ruling that would have allowed this user to create content (not an outright ban from Wikipedia) but stripped him of his trolling tools, of which the main are:

• revert warring
• pasting (from outside sites to Wikipedia and from one article into another)
• blanking (fragments or images he doesn't like).

Prohibited to blank and paste and with the right to revert in Poland related articles restricted to one per day or per week (excluding reversion of simple vandalism) all the values of this "valuable contributor" (as he was called by some who used him as a battering ram to advance the "right POV") would still be here but the disruptions would go.

As we all know, that ArbCom submission is complex and time consuming. I once submitted to ArbCom a case against one arch-Troll and it took the Committee about two or three months to rule on an open-and-shut case (with a ruling more severe than I actually requested, btw). The bottom line is that the ArbCom is slow and should be alleviated from plain obvious cases of the user's abuse. The admin discretion should be allowed as it is and the user here is not blocked on the Admin's whim but after a clear pattern of egiting abuse. If he is reformed in a month, good for him and all of us. If he uses this time to write some articles (even within his eternal agenda about wrongs perpetuated against Poles by Russians and Germans) and posts them upon return, this is just as well. While it is regrettable that he comes to WP with the sole intent to pursue such a narrow and divisive agenda, this is a legitimate agenda if he doesn't troll.

Having said that, if I see him back in a month (or in two weeks or whatever should his block gets shortened) back trolling in the full throttle, I will set aside several hours to write an ArbCom case. This needs to be put an end to. If he returns as a contrubutor (rather than a troll) even exclusively to divisive topics, I will welcome that. He, by no means, was the worse of the worst: usually reasonably civil, rarely but sometimes reasonable, just hysterical. So, for now, I say a month long break is what he and we all need. --Irpen 21:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Rgulerdem

I have gone ahead and indefinitely blocked Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) following unanimous consensus of all admins involved. Rgulerdem has violated many Wikipedia policies again and again and has been blocked by an unprecedented twelve separate admins, yet he shows no signs of having learned anything. He was recently given a last and final warning and showed no signs of repentence or intending to improve. I therefore have blocked him indefinitely at the behest of the community. --Cyde Weys 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Side note, see also WP:AN#Extensive internal spamming? NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 07:13 UTC (2006-04-10)

As the latest blocking admin (before the "final warning"), I have no problem with this block. Rgulerdem has demonstrated he is impermeable to reason with his recent comments and actions. Dmcdevit·t 07:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this guy edit anything except the defunct, rejected, and utterly ridiculous Wikipedia:Wikiethics page? Why not just ban him from editing that? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I dug through his contributions for a while looking for positive article contributions, and came up blank on the most recent 1000, so I checked his userpage, which led me to some highly POV editing. No objection here, we need to get rid of more people who are on Wikipedia just to play political games. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with this block, he was a thorn in everyone's side and served no legitimate purpose here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Interiot's tool analysis. I will post more once I've reviewed this. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Few article edits, none after February. Extensive talk page spamming re. "Wikiethics". Few contributions not related to Wikiethics. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did we ban this guy right away, but it took us forever to ban User:Copperchair? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the indef block. Can someone please exlain what he did to justify this? I looked through his most recent contributions and I don't see anything that bad. Also, I don't think the talk_page/project_page edit count is a problem. He has several hundred article and article_talk edits. He seems to have limited himself to editing a proposed project over the last month, but I don't see there is anything wrong with that. I don't know of any policy that says that one must edit in all spaces simultaneously. Johntex\^talk 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

His article talk edits have mostly been edit warring over the poll about the Muhammad cartoons, likewise his article edits. No positive contributions. As Sam said above,

I dug through his contributions for a while looking for positive article contributions, and came up blank on the most recent 1000, so I checked his userpage, which led me to some highly POV editing. No objection here, we need to get rid of more people who are on Wikipedia just to play political games. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 00:44 UTC (2006-04-14)

Why did Jason Gastrich get only one year then? Couldn't we give this chap a shorter ban (no more than a year) and then make it indef if and only if he is disruptive upon his return? --kingboyk 00:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

He's been disruptive since his start (went straight into remving the image at the Muhammad cartoons page). Look at his block log. 3RR (countless times), WP:POINT, civility, sockpuppetry, mass spam... NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 00:49 UTC (2006-04-14)

I agree his first edits were edit warring at Muhammad cartoons, but his behaviour seems to have gotten much better since then. He has been working on a proposed policy that he feels would be an improvement to Wikipedia. I don't see any diff have been provided to any behaviour that would warrant an indef block. Why not make it 6 or 12 months and put him on a short leash if he comes back? Johntex\^talk 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully support this indef. ban. User:Rgulerdem had numerous opportunities to follow the council of many editors and admins (with a good number of them being independent of anything User:Rgulerdem was working on) to assume good faith and be more cooperative with fellow editors and he repeatedly failed to heed such council. On nearly every occasion where unbiased admins curtailed his edit warring and incivility User:Rgulerdem was unrepentant and in fact exhibited disrespect towards them. Does the Wikipedia community need the involvement of such repetitively disruptive and unrepentant editors? Netscott 01:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I defintely don't think we do, but some diffs to justify exactly what he should be indef blocked would be appreciated. I see the justification for the previous, shorter blocks, but I don't see a smoking gun that led to an indef block. Johntex\^talk 01:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the smoking gun was the (ac)cumulation of his previous blocks, plus continued trolling and incivility towards every admin who blocked him (even without prior contact). You've read his talkpage, it's obvious he's attacking NicholasT and Dmcdevit. NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 01:33 UTC (2006-04-14)

Maybe I'm tired tonight, but I see no attacks by him on his user page at all. I see things like "Dear User:NicholasTurnbull, I am saddened with your actions....", "I am so sorry about misinformation, it was not you...", it all looks like reasonable discussion to me. Can you point to something specific he said that would constitute a personal attack? Johntex\^talk 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To Dmc: "How blind you are" (in the 3RR block section), in the final warning section "If you check my block log carefully you will see a dominant figure there" is trolling me, "As I said, I think your warning reflects some sincerety but to become unbiased" would suggest he thinks Nick is biased ("become unbiased"), is "Please be more careful in regard to having discretionary actions: "Users that exhaust the community's patience" is not acceptable here" not trolling Nick? "Please be more careful when using you previliges" would suggest admin abuse when no such abuse happened, and believe me, if I looked into his archives I could find many more, on Kelly Martin, Superm401 etc. NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 02:02 UTC (2006-04-14)

Thank you for providing specifics. I don't think any of those constitute a personal attack. I would say that "How blind are you" does violate WP:CIVIL, but that would be the wortst of them. I think we also have to note that this is his own user talk page. Traditionally, we have given more latitude to people on their own talk page. Please don't delve deep into his contributions for more examples. I am only interested in whether he did anything to support the final block. I accept that all the short term blocks were justified, and I accept as a corollary to that that his past actions have been punished. What did he do wrong after the so-called "final warning"? Johntex\^talk 02:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde read User:Rgulerdem's final comment and no doubt observed the unrepentant and disrespectful tone that Rgulerdem took towards User:NicholasTurnbull and rightly made a determination that Rgulerdem was not "getting it" and did not heed the "final warning". Netscott 02:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the diff. His statement does not seem to be a perosnal attack or a violation of WP:CIVIL. He says:

By the way, your title does not look good you may think to change it. It is irrelevant to call this as a final warning. I couldn't find any relevant note in the page you refered me too. Please be more careful in regard to having discretionary actions: "Users that exhaust the community's patience" is not acceptable here. I hope you do not replace your petience with that of the community. Thanks again..

It seems he is within his rights to question whether it is within policy to issue such a "final warning". I have unprotected his user page so that he may explain any positive contributions he has made to the project and so that we may have the full facts in considering whether this indef block should stand as is or be reduced. Please see the informaiton he has posted at User talk:Rgulerdem. Johntex\^talk 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Gidonb

A long history of spinning articles and PoV pushing about Israeli related articles. He is also violating "No pesonal attack policy" all the time against me. --Haham hanuka 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. You may wish to consider filing an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User almost daily "blesses" my edits, which are according to our rules and respected by people from all backgrounds, with very harsh and un-Wikipedian terms. He is very often banned for sock-puppetery and 3RR and breaking of other rules. At the Wikipedia in his mother tongue he is indefinitely banned from participation. The very mentioning of my name on this page does me injustice. gidonb 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Romeroma

User:Romeroma has been vandalizing pages releated with the current Peruvian national election, 2006. (See His Contributions. Normally I would wait it out for the vandal to leave, however this is a current event that many responsible Wikipedians are working on and the user is going to make it difficult to progress and furthermore, these pages (in particular the Ollanta Humala page) have been targeted before. The Humala page just got semi-protection taken off a few days ago and Spanish Wikipedia is currently protecting the Humala page due to heavy vandalism. I strongly suspect that this user is one of those IP vandals and just created an account.

Some of this user's recent contributions:

• Alan Garcia: Alias "el chancho en la estrella... and he maked peru a poor place...and decreasing money...that means artery problems and red annxious for blood [125] P.S "El Chancho" means "the pig".

• Lourdes Flores: vota por Lourdes, vota por el Peru, vota por Humala vota por la muerte...Translation "A vote for Lourdes, is a vote for Peru. A vote for Humala is a vote for death". [126]

• Ollanta Humala: Ollanta delincuente su madre Moises Humala Tasso asesino [127]

el mayor delincuente del mundo entero Translation: "The biggest delinquent in the entire world" [128]

that is a very crazy animal, an ex-communist of sendero luminoso and nationalist from crazyland... [129]--Jersey Devil 20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a day. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And I've semiprotected Ollanta Humala yet again. It's being targetted by many IPs. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

User:Mackensen

This user should have his moderator access removed for blocking me for no valid reason. The block occured immediately after User:Gnetwerker vandalzed my edits to the Steve Jobs article, Gnetwerker may be one of this user's sockpuppets User:RememberOctober29 11:45 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh this was actually posted by User:LotsOfPProblems, for whatever that's worth.--W.marsh 22:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Who got blocked indefinitely by someone else, if memory serves. Ah well. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:68.13.182.148 aka User:Axl Reisdorffposting death threats

As noted above and by [130] this user under the actual username (not the IP) has posted a death threat directly to me, on my user page. I was wondering if it could be removed from the servers and also if any other actions need to be taken. --Pilot|guy 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, [131]. Whew. --Pilot|guy 00:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Users posting legal threats on my talk page

Hi, I wanted to report two users posting legal threats of "Oregon Police" on my talk page. I reverted the edits. I have no idea who they are. The users posting the legal threats were User:Vigilant and User:Jerryg. I looked at their contribs, and to be honest, I fail to understand why they are even on WP since their entire posting history seems disruptive. Sorry for bothering folks with this, but I read the policies and they state users should report legal threats. I have noticed these users also seem to be associated with www.cornsilks.com and I had worked with one of the admins User:Katefan0 on some of their vandalism on Chad "Corntassel" Smith and Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief). Thank you for letting me post here. Sint Holo 06:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, your reading comprehension is pretty poor for a Chief Scientist. I was reminding you of a threat you posted here on Wikipedia about contacting 'Oregon Law Enforcement' about my stalking you here. And I stand by the comment. --Jerry (Talk) 05:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look, the diff covering both edits is [132], neither makes a legal threat. The reference to Oregon police is since they believe to you to be a reincarnation of a user blocked for making legal threats, I assume one of the threats that blocked user made was to report one of the users to the Orgeon police. --pgk^(talk) 07:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I was named in an arbcom dispute raised by the blocked user, could another admin look into if there is any merit in the claim that this is the blocked user and act appropriately, e.g. asking the two users mentioned to AGF, or dealing with the block evasion as required. --pgk^(talk) 07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am relieved. This person claimed they were calling the police. Thanks for explaining the situation. I will remove any such postings in the future since you have confirmed these users are merely reposting legal threats made by another user. Sint Holo 07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sint Holo is without any reasonable doubt another sock-puppet of multiply banned Jeff Merkey. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Talks_to_birds#In_pure_Merkey_style --Vryl 11:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is where the "legal threats" started, at "User:PeyoteMan Request User and Talk page Protection. Also place Indef Block on my Account" by User:PeyoteMan.

Note that User:PeyoteMan == User:Waya_sahoni == User:Gadugi == User:Asgaya_Gigagei == User:insert_new_persona_here.

Any subsequent references to "waiting to hear from Oregon law enforcement" by the individuals named in "PeyoteMan's" post are making reference to this brief post by User:PeyoteMan -- talks_to_birds 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

IP 128.171.138.XXX posting unsupported allegations of child abuse against James Levine

Once again, this IP has inserted allegations of child abuse against James Levine (history) supported only by Usenet posts. Has been warned many times. Please block!! Thank you. Grover cleveland 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The range given according to arin is the University of Hawaii, and the vandalism seems to have been originating from there since 4th April. If the vandalism continues we probably need to semi-protect the page in question and contact the university. --pgk^(talk) 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. on the one hand, WP:LIBEL suggests we should delete these from the page history. On the other hand, the rumors of James Levine's pedophilia are so widespread and longstanding (almost everyone involved with professional classical music in the U.S. believes that they know for a fact that Levine is a pedophile, a state of affairs which has held steady for at least 25 years), that I think it's worthwhile to mention the rumors in the article, if only to point out what the facts are: (1) no boy or man has ever publicly accused Levine of molesting him, (2) Levine has never been arrested or charged with anything in his life, and (3) (I'll have to look up the reference for this but I remember reading it) the rumors started shortly after Levine rejected a singer from something he was conducting for not being good enough, so it looks a lot like nasty revenge. So the question is, is it encyclopedia-worthy to have a section in his biography saying "These rumors exist and have been reported since X (with a citation), however no credible evidence exists to suggest that they are true"? (I have the same question regarding the rumors about Jamie Lee Curtis's alleged intersexuality.) I think such rumors do belong in articles, because people are going to come to Wikipedia wanting to find out the "true story" and will be surprised to find no mention of it, and will be inclined to add it themselves, sometimes (though not in this particular case) in good faith. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs on the James Levine talk page, but wouldn't Wikipedia policy on WP:Verifiability demand that a published source be referenced to make even these claims? Grover cleveland 13:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The specific discussion does belong there, but what I want to ask here is more general: if sources can be found confirming the existence of widespread rumors, and sources can be found showing that these rumors are unverifiable, isn't it encyclopedic to give that information? Every attempt to do so at Jamie Lee Curtis has been reverted, and given the current atmosphere at James Levine I suspect attempts to do so there will be reverted too. I think it's better to have a section saying "The rumors you may have heard have no basis in fact, here's why" rather than ignoring them altogether. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This same sort of problem occurs frequently at Clay Aiken. Whether or not he is gay, and only he could tell us for sure, there are lots of longstanding rumors about his orientation, and those rumors should be reported, if there is documentation of the rumors and they are widespread. But blogs and Usenet postings wouldn't work. Are there print cites of these rumors for Levine? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought so, but I'm not finding any now. Oh well, forget about it then. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I just deleted all the libelous edits from the history in compliance with WP:LIBEL. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please can you come back and repeat? He/she/it has reposted the malicious allegations, this time using a New York Times link to a story about Levine, which however totally fails to support the allegations. Thanks! Grover cleveland 01:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:RomeoVoid

RomeoVoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another music-articles blusterer, insisting on removing relevant material from articles that he considers his, describing non-vandalistic edits (including basic Wikification) as vandalism, etc. I've been editing some of the articles involved, so I'm not in a position to take action (and I'm not sure things have reached the stage where it's needed anyway), but could another admin have a look, and if appropriate have a word? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. He may be starting to lose his cool and I've left him a message to that effect as an uninvolved party, but I see no reason why this is an incident needing admin attention. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the same way that most of the incidents here involve content-disputes, but it's not that part of it that I'm concerned about; it's his incivility , etc. Thanks for your comment on his Talk page, though; I hope that it has some effect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, it hasn't really worked. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

I have just indefinitely blocked Jaulwood (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for trolling and attempted impersonation of Mindspillage. User was misusing the {{office}} template. Despite the user's protests, I'm absolutely 100% certain s/he is not Mindspillage! --RobertG ♬ talk 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, I'm absolutely 100% certain s/he is not Mindspillage. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, but how can you be so sure (:?HappyA1 23:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do admins deserve harrassment?

I've had a lot of harassment in the last week from vandals who think that I'm a faggot for following policy. Even after a tounge-in-cheek comment on my user page that I have a girlfriend (for the record, I'm straight). Even after protection of user pages, there have been people emailing me saying "You are a faggot". Just because I blocked them, just because I followed policy. Just because I'm an admin. It's not just me with this harrassment, female admins get imposters with sexual and crude names. Anyone who follows policy is automatically harassed. There needs to be harsher penalties for harassment/homophobic comments. Otherwise, the project will deterioate with innocent editors leaving Sceptre ^(Talk) 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A major problem I think is that many of these people consider Wikipedia to be a giant bulletin board, not an encyclopedia (or they have no respect for the concept of an encyclopedia). --kingboyk 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question, Sceptre, is no. That will be £200/hour charge-out rate plus travelling expenses. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre didn't actually ask a question, Sam. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait?! are we not supposed to answer rhetorical questions?--64.12.116.65 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you aren't but what am I? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins don't deserve it and neither do users. Those following policy deserve it even less.--Pro-Lick 16:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

With my e-mail filtering, any such e-mails would go directly to the spam folder and I wouldn't ever see them, yet alone respond. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Gmail's spam filter sucks (I get spam in the inbox and conversely, I get WikiEN-l in spam). I'm reporting to Yahoo anyway of these users Sceptre ^(Talk) 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What amuses me is the vandals who think they're insulting me by calling me gay, since I am gay. Now if they really wanted to get my goat, they'd write ANGR IS STR8!!!111!!! on my user page, but no one's ever thought of that yet... (uh-oh, did I just violate WP:BEANS?) Angr (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did, actually :D. I was going to put that some prominent users (such as you, Essjay, Francs2000, to name off the top of my head) are actually gay, but thought not to Sceptre ^(Talk) 16:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, while of course you can do what you want with your user page... but my suggestion is that maybe you should remove some of the personal information from your user page (e.g. age, birthday), and not make your e-mail addresses so readily available there. That might help. If people find the "email user" link in the navbox, that's fine - they can e-mail me. But if they can't figure that out, that's fine too. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think that admins, when acting in their official capacities (cf., in their capacities as editors), ought to be more willing and better able to handle receiving vituperative or pejorative comments. It is often suggested that police, for example, inasmuch as they are people in whom power is reposited and who are expected to be well-trained and trustworthy, must handle situations more calmly and with tougher skin than might other people; what are fighting words to most people oughtn't necessarily to be so for the police. We also apply different libel standards--in general--when dealing with figures who are public, especially those who are volitionally so. Here, admins agree to take on added responsibilities for the project, and, as such, are bound to upset more people than they would as simple editors; I think it follows that they should be willing to accept, without reaction, more criticsm--even where made in bad faith and in contravention of WP:NPA--than would a "simple editor". I should say that I do see that many users, upon becoming admins, show more tolerance for harassment/abuse against them, and so I think that most have the right idea in this respect. Joe 18:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying a woman deserves to be raped because she's asking for it. That's like saying Gator1 deserves to lose his job because he blocked a vandal. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think most/all of us accept that we will face abuse at times, and vandalism of our user pages. That doesn't make it right, however. Unlike the police or the military we're not paid, nor do we send people to prison or shoot them. Some of the "offenders" here (in addition to not grasping that this an encyclopedia!) no sense of perspective. The Gator1 case illustrates that beyond all measure really. --kingboyk 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Promising not to clutter AN/I anymore after this post...IMHO, Zoe's rape analogy is not particularly apt, if only because here the conduct about which I write is only discursive. I agree with Kingboy that, even as one accepts that he/she will be the victim of personal attacks, he/she needn't to concede that just attacks are proper, and I never meant to offer a normative view apropos of personal attacks. What I meant to say, what I think I did say, was that admins should have sufficiently thick skin that, when personal attacks are levelled against them for things done in their official capacities, they oughtn't to seek the issuance of/to issue a block. With respect to Zoe' Gator1 analogy, I don't think that such a comparison properly flows from what I said; there is surely a difference between one's making a personal attack on a talk page and one's taking extra-Wiki action, toward which proposition I adduce that one who refers derogatorily to another editor is not blocked for the same amount of time as one who negatively involves him/herself with another editor off-Wiki or disseminates personal details. None of this means that I countenance personal attacks--I don't, and I don't make them--but I think that an admin must overlook those attacks made against him/her for his/her admin actions, unless those personal attacks are profoundly disruptive to Wikipedia. After all, one of the reasons for which we have WP:NPA--I think the primary reason--is that the making of personal attacks disrupts the collaborative environment on the existence of which Wikipedia depends; where criticism is directed at an admin qua admin (as against admin qua editor), there is little disruption of the editing process. I regret any inference made from my comments to the effect that I support the making of personal attacks against admins or that I think the anon in the Gator1 case was correct to act as he did; I mean simply to say that, where a user, objecting to an admin action, imputes bad faith or employs hostile terminology, an admin, both as a trusted Wikipedian and as someone who has elected to be "the public face of Wikipedia" to many first-time editors, should perhaps simply overlook the attack (I think, FWIW, as I said above, that most do). Joe 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I frequently get "Deskana is a douche" or people changing my name on my userpage from "Daniel Garry" to "Daniel Gay". To be honest I just laugh. These are people who are taking the piss and saying "I'm not a vandal you gay boy" or "You're an idiot, I'm not a vandal, get your facts straight you *%*&$&* ". I ignore most of it... but you're right, nobody deserves it. I've learned to deal with the massive amounts of chavs that I have to deal with at work... nobody should have to, but that's life, unfortunately. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

At one point, that's all you can do. I've left easy links in my user page for everyone to see the utter stupidity I've had posted on my page... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

wait?

this isn't a giant bulletin board? then where am I supposed to go to advertise for my yard sale! you people are mean ):64.12.116.65 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

School bring and buy sales, on the other hand... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still getting nasty emails from User:Homeworld5, even though I am filtering his email account. He seems to keep creating new accounts just to send me more abusive email. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I banned one of his socks when I saw him vandalize Zoe's userpage, and he immediately sent me a charming email saying that Zoe and I are cunts. Who says the art of letter writing is lost? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you get those too? I think I have six now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's bad. I got my personal details published on an attack site for enforcing WP:NPOV, so I know how it feels. In the end you just have to stand up to them. And *never* reply to their emails. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't resist the other day when one sent me an email saying "I hate you". I replied with "But, I love you." User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Flower power, nice move Zoe :-o --Cactus.man ✍ 23:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Could be worse: I ran afoul of Jack Sarfatti a couple of weeks ago, and to date, he's sent me roughly 150 e-mails -- and that's a conservative estimate. Apparently I'm a Maoist Cyber-Terrorist. Also, apparently helping suppress the truth about Nazi flying saucers. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I just got one from someone who called me a standard sexual expletive, demanding to be unblocked or else. There was no identifying information, so I have no idea which vandal sent it. The delete key is your friend ... anyone else notice that they hit the "delete" key with more force than most of the other keys on the keyboard?  :-/ Antandrus (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I love those ones :-) You kind of wonder if they think it's personal and they are the only account you ever blocked. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, look at the bright side. All that vandalism and hate mail means someone cares about you. Um...maybe not in a good way, but in some way. Most users are largely ignored. Until I started voting for stuff and joined esperanza, I never got any messages. Most users barely get anything unless they average over 200 edits a month, or they're pissing a bunch of people off. It's only blockings and deletions that give you a red badge of courage, and for that, you must be an admin. Sometimes I actually wish I was an admin, because then I wouldn't have to go out of my way to find stuff to fix when I log on. There would just be a bunch of people waiting for me, bitching on my talkpage. You have to enjoy the bitching and the vandalism. I would—I enjoy it outside of Wikipedia.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:The-thing

I have blocked The-thing (talk · contribs) indefinitely for massive User Talk page spamming. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Morrow

71.139.175.48 (talk · contribs) Person in the same IP general range continuing the same conversation as Andrew Morrow [133], [134] Postings yesterday were removed yesterday by AnnH. With the comment "Post from indefinitely-banned user removed, per Jimbo's instructions.[135]". Derex 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Derex. I've blocked the IP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life article vandalism and/or disruption by well-known disruptor

Please review the repeated etreme POV insertion into the pro-life article. The user Pro-lick is a known disruptor/troll/sockpuppet king/queen. The disruptive extreme POV editing is here. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lick's extreme POV edit created this section of the pro-life article:

==Pro-Life Activism==

Pro-lifers primary method of activism is to harass both the people seeking abortion and the

people providing abortion. They also like to pray and read out loud from the Christian

bible outside of clinics.

Historically, they have also used more extreme methods:

• blowing up clinics
• shooting doctors
• shooting nurses
• distributing photos and videos of aborted fetuses
• handing out pamplets with false medical claims

Those edits seem perfectly reasonable and NPOV to me. And I say this as one who has had several disagreements with Pro-Lick. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

He's also currently indef blocked. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But since all the above can be backed by citations from reliable sources, I don't think there is much problem with including it. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not so much pro-choice as anti-baby, but even I think that there's a bit of a context problem in that edit. Besides, which citation backs up "Pro-lifers primary method of activism is to harass..."? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, anti-baby sort of sounds awful when you've just read the particulars of Partial-birth abortion. Anyway, though Pro-Lick's edits may be curious at times, many of them are (in my opinion) alright per WP:NPOV. The problem is that Lick does not accept consensus when it goes against his/her edits. AvB ÷ talk 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty POV to me, especially "Pro-lifers primary method of activism is to harass both the people seeking abortion and the people providing abortion." JoshuaZ 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the style is bad. But the facts are there: one of the things which has always puzzled me about these guys is the "life is sacrosanct, and if you take life I will kill you" bit. Obviously I use a different form of logic. Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Arights (talk • contribs) admits to using sockpuppets

See [136] Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's User:Arights, not Alrights. Secondly, unless I'm missing something, and I've re-read this several times, this user never said they used sockpuppets in that post; on the contrary, the post says that the person he's complaining about is using sockpuppets, not him. Third, while it's generally considered "uncool", there's nothing specifically wrong with using sockpuppets, unless they're being used to subvert Wiki policy. Fourth and finally, the grievance that User:Arights mentions in that dif you've provided seems like it is possibly legitimate (though I've done no serious investigation into the matter and so cannot comment on the veracity of any claims made there) and may be more worthy of admin attention than this, the very claim which brought the link to AN/I in the first place. Phew! JDoorjam Talk 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of libel and fraud in article space

I can't say I had the time to read these complaints fully or understand the context, but the contributions of User:85.144.140.118 seem to suggest serious accusations of libel in article space. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

85.144.140.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making inappropriate legal accusations in article edits of Patricia Cornwell. The rest of IP edits are stronger complaints such as this [137] in multiple places in Wikipedia, including Ticket#2006040610007535. Personal information is included. FloNight ^talk 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since the IP is from the Netherlands, I would bet dime to dollars the editor in question is Les Sachs. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That matches the signature of some edits. Do you think there is anything in the messages that needs to be deleted versus removed from view? FloNight ^talk 05:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do a search for "patricia cornwell" and "sachs" and you'll see that his stuff is spewed all over the place. It seems defamatory as all hell to me. I've been unable to find any references to the legal mess that caused Sachs to run to the Netherlands -- any not written by Sachs, that is. Deleting it might be a good idea. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted the only legit article I could find to the talk page. Thatcher131 14:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha, thanks. So, how do we get the defamatory material removed? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete the entire article and then restore all the edits except the defamatory ones (and any edits doing nothing except reverting defamatory edits). Angr (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

However, I've just looked through the page history of Patricia Cornwall and there's nothing that's actually LIBELous, just some POV skewing that's been reverted. I think the history can stay as it is. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Angr, the problem is not the article. It is the other edits by User:85.144.140.118. Look through contribution history. FloNight ^talk 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment- I've spent the past hour collecting references to do a major rewrite/expansion. There is lots of information about her life that is available and not included in our bio. I'm going to source every detail making it harder to add unsourced stuff. --FloNight ^talk 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please keep comments specific to the article to that talk page... But regarding the problem with Sachs adding POV nonsense, it's already hard to add unsourced stuff as a number of us have that article on our watchlist and remove any edits like that as soon as we see them. Please do not try to solve a problem that doesn't exist by making radical changes. Sachs is just like a lot of netkooks out there, no need to get bent out of shape, as we handle these kind of incidents all the time. DreamGuy 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sachs is under an injunction not to make attacks against Cornwell or use her name to promote his book. The edits here were partly to article space but also to places like Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. The question is, should these allegations be removed from wikipedia, not just from article space but from these other spaces, and should the edits be deleted from the page history instead of just reverting (due to the injunction). I don't know what the answer should be. By the way, I have access to the full court decision if someone wants it. Thatcher131 04:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I'm a bit more concerned now as I have found the allegations are on the Talk:Patricia Cornwell and have not even been blanked. Sachs is apparently under an injunction in the US from making these allegations so he went overseas, however we are still in the US. Has a Foundation attorney ever expressed an opinion as to whether the allegations should be deleted or can remain? Thatcher131 04:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page for Ayman_al-Zawahiri

There's an irrational, heated exchange on the Talk page for Ayman_al-Zawahiri under the 'Not dead until it's confirmed' paragraph. It involves political opinion/debate, and such exclamations as "May Allah avenge that on the infidels, because there is no other law but eye for eye, teeth for teeth!"

I'm not sure if this is where I report such an incident. I've never seen anything else like it, nor could I find any specific policy on this, but it is obvious enough to me that such offensive banter does not belong here. Please let me know if this is the appropriate course of action. Thanks. - Slow Graffiti 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the talk page with {{controversial}} temporarily, posted a little message asking people to keep things in the realms of civility, and I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! Proto||type 09:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre rant / legal threat at alt.usenet.kooks

The IP addresses, 210.50.143.20 (talk · contribs), 210.50.143.21 (talk · contribs), and 210.50.143.22 (talk · contribs), have been repeatedly posting a long rant into the article on alt.usenet.kooks claiming that the article might be violating some Australian state law against hate speech. *Dan T.* 11:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Given that the rant is identical, and the IPs are just one digit out from one another, I think it's safe to say it's the same person. I have posted a final warning to the talk page of each of the three IP addresses, and if it continues, I think a block is in order. Proto||type 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In case no one noticed, he took a break for a few hours after this and started up again.--KSevcik 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Account seems to have been created purely for vandalism - claims to be the North Carolina Vandal. I've blocked indefinitely, but I'd welcome review/comment as blocking is not something I do much. --ajn (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

looks good. --Syrthiss 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird addition of "Office" tag on Girls Aloud

Various users, Salsuroy (talk · contribs), Jaulwood (talk · contribs), and Kalzamare (talk · contribs), have been adding the WP:OFFICE tag to Girls Aloud, apparently without any sort of authorization from the actual Wikimedia office and without giving any explanation. One of the edit comments claimed that it was to make a WP:POINT, but the actual point was unexplained. These users claim to be sockpuppets of admins, but there's no reason a real admin should have to act through a sockpuppet. *Dan T.* 11:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All three have already been indefinitely blocked for vandalism and impersonation. Proto||type 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, damn. Looks like I jumped the gun on protecting the page, then? I'll leave it protected, Just In Case, but anyone should feel free to revert me. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the protection off, in the Spirit of Wiki... or whatever. I'll watch the page and post-steroids-Barry-Bonds smack vandals out of the park if they keep tagging it. As these accounts appear new, maybe a semi-protection might be in order, but for now I think it can be open. JDoorjam Talk 13:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny is the only person who can perform an WP:OFFICE action. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that – despite the absence of mention in the WP:OFFICE page – we probably should be very wary of removing a WP:OFFICE tag left by Jimbo or a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board (around here, most likely either Anthere or Angela). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they need to use WP:OFFICE, which is nothing more than a delegation of a few "board" powers to someone who wouldn't have them otherwise. --cesarb 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they don't need to use the template or policy. However, if they did choose to slap a WP:OFFICE template on an article, it would serve to emphasize that they were acting in their roles as Wikimedia Board members rather than as regular admins.

While most of our admins are bright enough not to undo Jimbo's adminnish actions without discussion and a really good reason, we've probably got a substantial population of admins (particularly newer ones) who might not recognize other members of the Board without prompting. Although wheel-warring is always to be discouraged, tangling with the Board (and the Board's associated legal rights and responsibilities) is really frowned upon. If a WP:OFFICE template could avert such a conflict, I don't see the harm in it being used even if it is not strictly necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Brief block

I have blocked Sliat 1981 for 6 hours for repeatedly wiping warnings about WP:NPA from his talk page. Maybe this will give him time to settle down and consider things calmly. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless he's doing something in addition to this I'm not sure this is warranted since users are allowed to blank messages including warnings from their talk page, even though it is very strongly discourged. If he was ignoring them and continuing and/or being disruptive in addition to this then I support the block though. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's explicitly defined as a form of vandalism, and I'm pretty sure all vandalism is blockable. {{wr2}} agrees, and I would think all the templates at WP:TT can be relied upon. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually users aren't allowed to blank warning messages from their talk pages. They can be blocked for that, although that alone doesn't solve anything ... blocking and protecting the talk page together is the only real solution. --Cyde Weys 17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As one of the users whose warnings were blanked, I can say he did so because he intended to ignore them, not because he'd read it and didn't need it anymore. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User Cuñado19 sockpuppet

Someone created User:Cunado19's sockpuppet to make one useless edit in an ongoing discussion. The User page is intended to deliberately insult User:Cunado19. Is it possible to determine if a registered user did this? MARussellPESE 13:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, take it to WP:CHECK. I've indefinitely blocked the account as an impersonation / attack of a registered user. Proto||type 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User Evading Blocks

68.115.72.93 (talk · contribs), who has already been identified as a sock puppet of Braaad (talk · contribs), is working on his blocked accounts and harassing other editors again. McNeight 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

impersonator of a sysops? username block? or odd coincidence?

Relatively new user BlueGoose (talk · contribs) impersonator of admin Bluemoose? a one letter permutation seems awfully close to be a coincidence--172.136.102.28 19:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a block is needed. They aren't that close and confusion isn't likely. BrokenSegue 19:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

December 2005 isn't so new, and his talk page contains run-of-the-mill Wikipedia business. Doesn't seem odd to me. --kingboyk 19:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to AGF here. I didn't see anywhere in their edit history that they put forth that they were an admin, and they sign their posts as BlueGoose...while Bluemoose signs his as Martin. --Syrthiss 19:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I just received 172.136.102.28's message on my talk page. Trust me, I have never had any intention to impersonate Bluemoose or any other user on Wikipedia. BlueGoose 05:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Vorash

I didn't want to bring this issue up here; I hope it would be resolved without administrator intervention, but I feel I have no other option, since it has been going on for weeks now. Vorash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly reverting attempts made to remove uncited sales figures from the article Mariah Carey singles discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without adequate discussion or explanation, and his blanket reverts have been undoing dozens of good edits made to the article in the meantime. This originally started back in January when I removed material which I believed to be unsourced; Vorash subsequently reverted, and continued to do so after that (see, for example, [138] and [139]). I dropped the issue after I noticed some websites included within the article's references section, but upon closer investigation they do not support the material that Vorash insists on reinserting time after time. He has also reverted without edit summaries and marks reverts as "minor" edits, despite being requested not to do so. As can be read at user talk:Vorash, I referred him to the appropriate policy and guideline pages, and his response was to call my message "bullshit" and accuse me of vandalising the article [140]; he continues to refer to me as a "vandal" in his edit summaries even though I have asked him not to.

I know that this isn't the place to report content disputes, but this has gone beyond that; it's a case of a stubborn and unresponsive user performing blind reverts to a weeks-old version of an article which border on vandalism, and this can all be seen in the page's edit history (see [141], [142], [143], and most recently [144]). This revert, for example, re-introduced a factual inaccuracy into the article which had been previously removed (and was only spotted again today). It would be appreciated if somebody were to at least drop him a note on his talk page, since that might be the source of the problem: the only other editor involved here is myself, and Vorash may give his histrionic reverting a second thought if somebody else tells him that what he is doing is absolutely unacceptable. Extraordinary Machine 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Try a WP:RFC. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I.P. 68.45.21.137

• 68.45.21.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been vandalizing Phillyblog. evrik 20:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for this in future. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Done. evrik 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Reporting more incidents

I would like to report a few more of my blocks and other incidents:

• 24.118.251.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandalized Paul Anka by replacing the article with the text "f**kers, cant ip ban me now, i spoofed it." Something needs to be done about this user, but I am not sure what. (I blocked him for a week anyway.)
• 24.2.207.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Dumped kB's of nonsense into Curt Schilling. Is a week's block appropriate? Originally I suspected this to be a vandalbot attack, but if it were one, he would have likely done more.
• 128.192.238.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Proposed a move of Automobile to "Automobile on wheels". Can it be verified that this address has been used by Willy on Wheels, or is this just a newbie trying to be funny?

Mike Rosoft 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• • A week seems a little steep for the 24.2 guy; usually I try 48 hours before I hit 'em with a week (at least for IP edits). On the other hand, for registered users, if they've contributed nothing but vandalism like this guy has, I just block them indefinitely. So I guess I'm drawing some kind of distinction that might not quite make sense. For the third guy, blocking for one silly-ass joke seems excessive. First guy's kinda the same category as the second. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • All right, I am reducing the block length of both of them to 48 hours. In case of the third user, I have already unblocked him; I immediately realized that I had been a bit too trigger-happy. - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag-team vandalism at Wikipedia

The "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia" vandal (or 3RR-evading edit-warrior, if you want to be polite, and three guesses who it is) is employing a new tactic: one sock makes the edit, then another sock blanks the page immediately after. An admin or user or Tawkerbot who reverts the blanking ends up reverting to the version that the vandal actually wants. I've sprotected the page, but naturally he has some aged sleepersocks in store. He's done this four times or so today. See the recent history of Wikipedia. Everyone please keep an eye on it. -- Curps 23:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep an eye out for it / try and figure out how to make Tawkerbot2 handle it better. I'm just going to indef block the tag team socks as its pretty obvious they're vandal socks -- Tawker 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:StarHeart NPA and various

StarHeart (talk contribs) has been making various non-policy edits of Police state, Astrology, Dictatorship, created a vanity article up for AfD, and has apparently created an open sockpuppet at User:Andrew Homer. Latest incident is this recent entry on the second account talk page in which he exceeds previous personal attack levels. He seems to be escalating. I don't know if a block is warranted but an uninvolved neutral party admin might want to take a look at what he's up to. Georgewilliamherbert 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• But wait, there's more and more... Georgewilliamherbert 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester automated God-mode bot out of control!

Check out this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bat_Boy&diff=48194101&oldid=48193957

Where's the shut off button?!! --Battery electric factory flat truck Resident Super Expert Elite 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• See section below. --InShaneee 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Battery electric factory flat truck Resident Super Expert Elite (talk · contribs). Using image previously deleted from Wikipedia (and subsequently uploaded to Wiki Commons by his sockpuppet Tim.) Reverts to versions by prev sockpupets on various articles. Personal attacks against me. etc, etc... --JW1805 (Talk) 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

This guy has demonstrated that he has no interest in following wikipedia policy or copyright laws. Uses dishonest and misleading copyright tags, would someone ban this guy already? [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] (just a very small sample of this guys work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattKingston (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, wow. That sure looks bad. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a note. Jkelly 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

more of the personal attacks [151] and antisocial behaviour [152] [153]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattKingston (talk • contribs)

RDH is a little too laissez-faire, and MattKingston is a little too copyright paranoid. I've left them both talkpage messages, and strongly recommend a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Objecting to someone forging copyright tags and removing {{unverified}} templates from images that still don't have sources doesn't qualify as "copyright paranoid" in my opinion. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Stifle, Ryan Delaney is quite right. Dismissing our basic insistence that images be sourced as "copyright paranoia" is unhelpfully flippant. It's fine to ask that we be WP:CIVIL when we remind people that we need this information, but it isn't okay to encourage people to revert image-cleanup procedures. Jkelly 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There's been previous discussion about this user and a similar issue here, and I, unfortunately, have doubts that this issue will be settled quietly, either. The earlier conversation quickly derailed into one side begging for exceptions to clear-cut Wikimedia copyright policy. In short, fair use images were removed from the R.D.H.'s page after two months of ignored warnings by at least five separate users, Ashibaka (neutrally, to prevent edit warring) protected R.D.H.'s user page after fair use images were removed, Giano and R.D.H. protested, and Doc glasgow, Splash, Alhutch, Cohesion, Jmabel, Colin Kimbrell, Scm83x, and myself either agreed that he was violating policy or noted that he or she had warned R.D.H. in the past. On another note, I only see copyright paranoia as a ridiculously and unproductively conservative point of view when it comes to a grey area in copyright policy; it is not paranoia when an editor is simply following our clear-cut guidelines. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I can hardly believe the assessments made here. I'm not saying RDH isnt hotheaded and sarcastic - he certainly is. But people, lets have some perspective. The images concerned were mostly bordering on PD. Furthermore, the guy is not a troll, but a wonderful contributor on actual content. Sure we could ban him, but perhaps, maybe, some Tact^tm would help to actually keep good contributors inside the Wikipedia.

Of course he has had a rather hot head lately. But personally, I can understand his frustration. He's trying to make some beuatiful articles, and User:MattKingston suddenly starts listing his contributions on IFD, noting not that the images are problematic, but rather that the user is problematic. He doesnt even have the common decency to actually tell RDH his work is being undone. Now ask yourself, would you be slightly angry if this happened to you?

Seriously, if you destroy somebody else's work, you should realise that you're bound to affect them in some way or another! Whether the delete/edit/revert was justified or not, this is one situation in which we need to be doubly civil. We all know that the exodus of good editors is one of the largest problems on the Wiki, yet nobody seems to link it to this kind of behaviour. I daresay almost all of the editors who left, did so because their work was destroyed by some untactful other editor.

To top it all off, there is a casual conversation with threats to take him to ArbCom, and hoping that his dwindling editing count is a signal of him maybe stopping Wikipedia and his "vandalism an uncivil" actions (see here). Bleugh. That makes me sick. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that on my above posts that I forgot to sign, hopefully I won't forget to sign this post. MoW, I think you'd have a more clear picture of the situation if you reviewed the entire history of the interaction between RDH and myself. You'll note that every message I've ever left on his talk page has been removed without responding to it (often with an incivil edit summary). And that every time I've notified him that an image has been tagged, he's reacted by simply removing the tag. Every image that I've posted on IfD was in clear violation of WP policy. As for his stuff "bordering on PD", an example of an artist that he stole from was Andre Jouineau (see upload summaries at [154]). Now it seems to me, from amazon[155], Mr. Jouineau still earns his living from the paintings he produces. This image was tagged as {PD-old} by RDH. Yes, I say without hesitation that if a user engages repeatedly in uploading someone else's copryighted work and tagging it as public domain then they are a problem. One would have to be very naive to think that any of the other images that he uploaded (and refuses to provide sources for) are PD. Perhaps his contribution to article text is valuable to the project, and perhaps his text is original or free, but his image contributions are worse than unfree, they couldn't even pass as fair use. I'm greatly dismayed that he's been permitted to continue with this behaviour for as long as he has.Matt 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a quote from wikipedia:blocking policy on the subject of plagiarism:

We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy, because this kind of plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core principles. All admins are invited to block any and all similar users on sight. Be bold. If someone takes you to ArbCom over it, have no fear. We must not tolerate plagiarism in the least. Jimbo Wales 04:28, 28 December 2005 UTC)[156]

There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square. Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[157]

Matt 22:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your're absolutely right, plagiarism need to be dealt with. But is that really what we are talking about here? In this regard I think Stifle's comment above is on the money. RDH is too laissez-faire, and you are too restrictive. Check out Image:Louis lazare hoche.jpg. The artist has been dead for 181 years. Nonetheless, you "mercilessly" tag it as plagiarism, because there is some question about who did the colouring. Now, I dont find RDH's comments on "copyright paranoia" very helpful, but I can sympathise.

But I'll repeat what I said. It has little to do with the fact that you put them up for deletion. Whether or not your nomination has any merit is a matter for an IFD discussion, not here. What I am concerned about is your total disregard of the fact that somebody worked his ass off to put it up there - in good faith - and you didnt even bother to inform him of the fact that you were undoing his hard work. Regardless of whether or not you are right on the copyright (which in some cases is up for debate as well), your conduct (and lack of it) towards him, and the comments on your talk page hoping he is going to leave, are very VERY unbecoming for any editor.

If you want him to assume good faith, and be civil, fair enough. But reflect on your own actions as well. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 10:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Smart" insult

User:Kuban kazak has “discovered” the following strategy to insult editors. On talk pages he enters most of his message in English, but then adds a quite insulting part in Russian (translation is provided by me according to a dictionary on www.lingvo.ru):
(1) козел = goat [158]
(2) дурень = dope [159],[160], [161]
(3) дебил = moron [162], [163]
(4) заноза = splinter [164]
(5)…that would be an insult to that svidomyi brain which you carry and that is a pity… = svidomyi is used by people like him to insult a particular Ukrainian political party; the rest in english [165]
The list above is based on his activity in the last 3 days. Previously he was insulting other users (who he knew were capable to understand Russian) in the similar way; an example:
(6) капризная баба = shrew [166]
In his recent conflict with another user [ref], they both were banned for being “gratuitiously impolite in the edit comments”. But it didn’t stop the Kuban kazak from sharing the great potential of the Russian language.
I put a few warnings on his talk page, but he removes it without explanation. [167], [168], [169].
All of this is worsened by edit wars (between him and me) on Oleksander Koshetz, Kryvyi Rih Metro Tram, and a few other pages.
Is there anything to fix the situation? --Anonymous 06:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. Well, they say Russian is an expressive language. I'm inclined to agree. (Finally my Russian skill came in useful, though I only knew козел XD )... gotta learn more Russian insults. Oh, 24 hours since he was a repeat offender. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Flood of new accounts at Talk:Clive Bull

Ok, I tried to resolve this without resorting to the cabal, but I honestly have no idea what to do with this one. Clive Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an LBC DJ whose article is the subject of a revert war over a change made by Minglex. Syrthiss and I believe the change makes the article more encyclopaedic, a host of IPs and new accounts claim the wording isn't as good and have been reverting it wholesale for weeks, resulting in a period of full protection which achieved nothing. Some of you might remember the sockpuppetry and impersonation at the article of fellow LBC DJ Iain Lee - the sockpuppets took the opposing side.

I recently took it to RFC, and the response so far has been a flood of new accounts which object to the change. The thing is, they claim to all be from the same office, thus heading off any point in a sockpuppet check. I'd like some more eyes on this as I'm at a loss myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

2nded. Before the situation was alleviated because while all the vandals were blocked by page protection they started posting to other articles the entire contents of Iain Lee and suggesting people continue editing there...so I started tossing around warnings and indef blocked any socks that I could find when they didn't heed the warnings. They aren't being as disruptive this time around, but they're coming close (continued pleas on WP:RFPP to lock the article at "their" version...posting on ANI that I blocked poor DebbieatCNBC just for editing). --Syrthiss 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User Freakofnurture

Massive extracts from user talk:Jonathan 7 and user talk:Freakofnurture snipped…

So my point is that Freakofnurture has had some sort of agenda against me from the very beginning, and has accused myself of all sorts of hurtful stuff such as sockpuppetry for Daniel Brandt and has constantly deleted my talk page. He is abusing his admin powers and it is greatly annoying. Please do something about this. 86.129.35.152 10:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)after edit conflict

Very interesting. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew nothing about that. Mine is an IP which registers to the Yorkshire/Humberside region. Any other guy with a hate against Wikipedia could have done it. It certainly doesn't register to my personal computer. I absolutely do not believe that the violating of Godwin's Law is a good way to put oneself across, in fact it just decreases the reliability of an arguement. It is not me. Can we please continue this discussion? 81.152.12.126 21:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Guy, what part of "open proxy" in his explanation was unclear? Hint: the location of the server building is irrelevent in identifying the actual location of the user. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

...And yet Daniel Brandt was able to identify the location of Brian Chase in the Seigenthaler autobiography controversy, so i should believe that is in fact NOT irrelevent. Read my posts again, my case is made quite clear. Jonathan_7 86.128.14.55 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User 69.250.40.75 and Christian wikis

This anonymous user has many times expressed opposition to mormonwiki.com being included on the Christian wikis article. He (or she) has now resorted to "stealth editing", marking deletion of the mormonwiki.com entry as a "typo". When this was reverted, 69.250.40.75 chose to be even more dishonest, editing the link to mormonwiki.com to direct it to another site, altogether. I could not find a warning template to cover such fraud. Please look into the matter. Dogface 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the user User:Motmajor has indulged in similar behavior on the Christian wikis page. Dogface 11:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this. (Well, I did, then I realised I was wrong. Trying too hard to assume good faith after Clive Bull, maybe.) This edit is the one with the 'typo' edit summary, and it is, in fact, correcting a typo. His edits look like good faith to me. I've just made myself look like a cretin, so please explain the disparity between what you've said he's done and what his edit history shows. I'm not au fait with the dispute but there does not seem to be a consensus for the inclusion of the link on Talk:Christian wikis. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article originally describes MormonWiki.com as pro-Mormon and MormonWiki.org as Protestant anti-Mormon. Motmajor (talk · contribs) deletes MormonWiki.com but labels it a "typo". Dogface restores MormonWiki.com. user:69.250.40.75 changes the url of the link to MormonWiki.com to .org.

It does not look like a widespread or long-term enough problem to qualify for a checkuser request at the present time (although it doesn't hurt to ask). If these two editors continue to appear to work together, or this spreads to other articles, or they start taking turns reverting to avoid a 3RR block, then it will be serious enough to warrant a checkuser or blocking. Right now it seems pretty minor and containable. Thatcher131 12:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackinthestock

Jackinthestock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made this edit to the Template:Unblock (see also the comment he left on Template talk:Unblock) which went unnoticed for over 3 hours. Suspecting a sockpuppet of some blocked user I'd like to turn some admin's attention to this. Thank you, Misza13 ^{T C} 13:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire internal spamming/"vote" stacking

Morton devonshire recommended delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) and has since used an identical message (not labeled as a mass mailing) to call on more than 50 users (perhaps more since this post) most of whom appear to have had no prior involvement with the article to join the discussion, most of them (about 3/5) members of Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy what links to the AFDMorton Devonshire contribs. Indicating what his his intent was in notifying these specific users, after one of the people he called on recommended keep he wrote "Dang man, I guessed wrong. Cheers anyway!" diff. I see this as problematic. Шизомби 16:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, proof that, if we want to keep wikipedia NPOV we must delete all divisive userboxes except the ones that help paranoid people freep AFD votes, they're OK--152.163.100.65 21:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote Stacking

The following comments are in my opinion, unwarranted and border on a personal attack on me...my vote to delete was not any more hostile than a number of other editors that also voted there.--MONGO 02:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to MONGO for having placed this notice here without having contacted him first. I apologize for some of the wording I used below. I still feel the behavior was objectionable, but I understand from the consensus below that it was not something that should have been posted here at all. Шизомби 03:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO was one of those called on by Morton devonshire in his POV push to delete an articlediff; I don't think an admin should participate in such an action. Additionally, MONGO's recommendation does not articulate a valid reason for deletion: "Delete So a few Bush haters and terminated employees got together and complained...no surprise." diff One could possibly infer that his reasoning is that it is nn, but a closing admin could just as easily ignore his recommendation for lacking a reason. While one might understand a POV statement given as a "reason" by a mere user and simply discount it, for an admin I think there should be higher standards. Шизомби 17:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? If the closing admin thinks the reason isn't valid s/he can discount it (but it sounds like a valid "nn/article is political points scoring" reason to me). I presume, also, that MONGO didn't ask to be spammed. In any event I don't think this is a matter which needs review here. --kingboyk 17:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(This thread was blanked by Notasoxpuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), their first and only contribution). --kingboyk 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that he's saying it's non-notable. I'm sure he would expand his reasoning if you asked him to. As you say yourself, a closing admin could just as easily ignore his recommendation for lacking a reason as that admin could infer that MONGO meant it was non-notable, so if anything your argument seems to be that his vote commentary isn't persuasive enough. If the closing admin wanted more information about what MONGO meant, they too could ask on his talk page. If MONGO deleted the page in question out of the blue and left that as a rationale, yeah, I'd say that would be inappropriate. But this is simply an AfD vote. I see nothing here out of the ordinary or against policy whatsoever—I've seen votes far more terse than that on AfD—and aside for your implicit request that MONGO elaborate on his position, I don't really understand the grievance you're claiming. JDoorjam Talk 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant you both that it isn't an especially egregious action, but nonetheless feel the conduct was unbecoming. Again, the objections I had were: (1) that MONGO should have not participated in the POV push to delete, or if he felt he really had to then should have noted that he'd been asked to participate (as Jersey Devil noted), and (2) that an admin should articulate valid reasons to delete, rather than leaving their reason open to interpretation & that their reason should not be expressed in such a derogatory POV way - particularly when there is a POV push on the AFD. As I said, perhaps that sort of behavior can pass for the average user, but I think admins should meet higher standards. Шизомби 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Per kingboyk, I dont see how this is relevant to this board. MONGO is not acting in any administrative function on that afd, and while he is an administrator, administrators are just regular editors with a few extra buttons...and I've seen plenty of regular editors make far more snarky comments. --Syrthiss 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's really the case that "administrators are just regular editors with a few extra buttons" and they can behave just as badly as a regular editor, then I apologize for cluttering the board up with this incident, especially since the other one I posted above deserved more attention than this one. Шизомби 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee...how pleasant that Шизомби never once bothered to ask my rationale on my talk page...but if anyone pushes a POV, it is when someone adorns their userpage with the comment that they oppose Goeroge W Bush and supports his impeachment...I stand by my comments in the Afd. Your complaint is without merit.--MONGO 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The elephant in the room Isn't anyone at all curious about why a new editor's first contribution would be to blank the complaint? Thatcher131 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• If I had to venture a guess, I'd think it's our old pal the AN:I Fake Incident Reporter. --InShaneee 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoever it is, they're indefblocked. --Syrthiss 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm a little more concerned about the specific people who were notified, a few trolls, one or two open proxy ip edit warriors with only 2 or three edits, and at least two users who have been indef banned, a long time ago, and a gaggle of unrelated newbies with a handful of edits each..all told to come and vote?--152.163.100.65 19:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Man has a lot of connections for someone who only registered in December, oddly the same month that a few of the people he notified recieved their indef blocks--152.163.100.65 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• May be worthy of some further investigation. I'd also point out that I have in the past received a complaint about User:Morton devonshire's talk and user page, but I didn't take it any further as he seemed to be the sort who would get a kick out of an admin going over there and giving him a talking to. (Something of a troll, in other words). --kingboyk 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• odd, I was looking into this issue when I ran across Merecat (talk · contribs), one of the users contacted in the above spam campaign, is now spamming the exact same talk pages asking people to intervene in a request for comment, I think someone needs to make a definative statement regarding the practice of talk page spam, or it's going to really start to spread if people start to get the idea that it's a legit method for garthering support for your cause--205.188.116.65 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you logged into your account when posting.Thatcher131 04:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Overzealous bot?

Hi. I was just wondering if there's been a Wikipedia directive about changing all footnotes throughout the whole thing thing to reference note. User talk:Cydebot, clearly trying to be helpful and pro-active, has created a bot that's been making summary changes to that effect (at Doctor Strange, Daredevil (Marvel Comics) and elsewhere).

I left this message at User talk:Cydebot, to sum up my concern:

This seems like a pretty big summary change throughout Wikipedia, without any consensus that I can see here, at least. I'd like to get an Administrator opinion before your bot continues. Some editors prefer traditional footnotes, and unless there's a specific Wikipedia directive against them, I'm not sure it's good idea to make widespread changes that's just one person's personal preference.

Thanks. Hope my questions aren't out of line. -- Tenebrae 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• The current changes, replacing the outdated {{fn}} to {{ref}} does not seem to be changing the style or content, its just replacing an outdated template. However, this is clearly in preparation for converting all citations to the Cite.php format. While I personally like and use the Cite.php format (and would like to be able to request the bot' attention to a page I am editing) I do not think that a mass conversion to Cite.php would be at all good. As long as other methods of referencing are considered acceptable, I do not support mass conversion to any one particular method. Thatcher131 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, Cydebot is run manually, so if anything is going wrong I am sitting right here watching it and will take action. I'm also continuously monitoring my talk page, so if you have any immediate comments or concerns it's best to bring them up at my talk page (rather than ANI or Cydebot's talk page). And yes, Thatcher's summary is pretty accurate. Cydebot isn't changing {{ref}} or {{note}}, he's just changing all of the really old footnote/reference styles to be somewhat up-to-date. All of the conversions made to Cite.php using Ref converter are done strictly manually. I'm going to hold off on Cydebot's work on references for a bit and work on the block notifications instead, so there's plenty of time to comment on this issue. May I request that you discuss it on User talk:Cydebot though, as this board tends to run rather fast and a discussion of references doesn't exactly fit in amongst all of the vandalism reports :-P Cyde Weys 19:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Block

The IP 205.169.164.65 really needs a longterm block. It continues to blank and vandalize pages, despite many warnings. Maybe something can be done about this. --Mets501^talk 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's a dynamic AOL IP. Since any AOL user could use it at any time, it wouldn't stop that vandal (or, more accurately, vandals), and would more than likely disrupt the editing of some other, unrelated user. --InShaneee 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not AOL, it's a school IP, I don't see any goodfaith edits, block it --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's block for 3 months to get us out of the school year. Maybe they'll have a better watch over their herd in the fall? Johntex\^talk 01:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ceha and my user page

can some disciplinary actions be taken against user:Ceha he has made personal attacks upon me for my personal beliefs, on my userpage and elsewhere. [my talk page]

--Jadger 18:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that you can be upset for these comments, but I would not go as far as label them personal attacks. You can read WP:NPA for more details. Comments in your talk page that you don't like, you can simply remove them. If someone defaces your user page (not your talk page) that is considered vandalism and you can report it at WP:AIV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if stalking was occuring, that would be a different matter. Ian13/talk 20:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoraida

The User:Zoraida removed an afd tag whilst a discussion on deletion of the article was going on. [170] Then violated WP:POINT by listing up Democratic Underground for deletion (See Here} for the stated reason

• "For childish behavior in requesting that the pages of competing forums Progressive Independent be deleted from Wikipedia. This all started with a comment we posted on DU's page adding that another forum had been created by ex-DUers. Our comment didn't attack or smear DU and yet they took great offense to it. Already DU won't allow mention of competing forums on their board. Should Wikipedia tolerate their fascism here? Zoraida 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)" [171].

The user has also failed to maintain civility making such comments as

• "This afd is a total joke so we thought we'd give you one also. How dare you try to intimidate people here!
  Not surprisingly Democratic Underground can't tolerate mention of alternatives to it fascist forum. Wikipedia is an open source for information. You can prevent discussion of alternatives on your forum but not here.
  Kindly get off your imaginary soapbox. I'm afraid you'll break your neck.
  And don't you dare delete my here comment again. Zoraida 11:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [172].

Hostile edit summaries:

• DU fascism again. Can't handle criticism or competition. PI readded so that readers know of the alternatives. You do not own this entry to use as propaganda.) [173]

We don't need these kinds of "forum rivalries" disrupting the afd process.--Jersey Devil 23:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal information posted on user's talk page but not by them

User:HK30 has posted a link and photo that is supposed to be User:KHM03 - this smacks of stalking as KHM03 has not made these links from his user page so I assume he does not want them publicised. User HK30 is a suspect sockpuppet who is awaiting a check user. I have no idea what to do about this bust thought I should flag it for someone more experienced to deal with. User talk:KHM03#Is this really you? (link) Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

He and a new user User:SimplePilgrim are now going round posting the link to a lot of user talk pages Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the info from User:KHM03's page while the matter is being discussed. I have not deleted it from the history. I am inclined to say that the information should be deleted from the history, as personally idenifiable information is a very serious matter. Johntex\^talk 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed but it's in a lot of different places now - check the contribs for HK30 and SimplePilgrim. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it everywhere I've found it (on all the talk pages) but the link is of course in the edit histories. If I've overstepped the mark I'm sorry but it really concerns me that personal details can be linked without the permission of the user concerned. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Help please - User:HK03 is now reverting all the pages I removed this link from. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No such username, but overcoming the slight difference in characters, I've blocked indef for POINT/stalking/edit warring/personal info. NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 00:59 UTC (2006-04-14)

Is a block needed on the other guy? NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 01:00 UTC (2006-04-14)

Yes, I think so. Not realizing you already made one block, I blocked them both for one month to give us time to discuss this without them posting additional links. Johntex\^talk 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action - I have e-mailed User:KHM03 about this situation. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please ask him whether/how much he objects to the information being in the page histories. It is somewhat of a drag to try to delete it from the history of so many pages. Johntex\^talk 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - will do. User:HK30 has also edited as anon IP User:206.61.48.22 (he's admitted this on his talk page) does this also need to be blocked? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 01:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see the claim on User:HK30's talk page that he and this IP are one and the same. I saw no edits from User:206.61.48.22 on topics other than the same ones User:HK30 frequents. So I blocked that IP address for one month also. Johntex\^talk 01:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In this users defense, he/she was new and did not originate that site or spread it, I think, with any malice. He seems to just want a response from the users who it is about, in effect alerting them, and having the problem it talks about openly discussed, or responded to by the other side. I also note that the user, after being notified of his vio for the 3RR reverted himself so as not to violate the rule, and promised to follow the rules. I think he/she is potencially a good user, with a little explanation, and that therefore this bann is not just, esp. not indefintitely. Giovanni33 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I completly disagree Gio - the guy did not edit like a newbie and posting personal information everywhere he could think of pretty much counts as stalking - to the extent of asking Str1977 if he had a picture. Only the block and these kind admins stopped him from revert warring with me on this. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 07:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On his talk page, SimplePilgrim (talk · contribs) claims he used to be John1838 (talk · contribs) and J1838 (talk · contribs), whose user page was previously deleted as an attack page. I've indef blocked both of them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Another new user User:AnotherHeneghan which is a play on another editors (and has plagiarized their user page) name is adding the links back - help please. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted; deleted the transcluded user space. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - some of the users affect by these posts are on short wikibreaks for easter so I will keep a good eye out this sort of new user. Thanks again for the very swift response. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:KHM03 has requested via e-mail to me that he would like all traces of these website posts removed from the edit history. He is busy at the moment with Easter celebrations so I'm posting this for him. Please could a kind admin do the necessary hard work to achieve this. Thanks. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Arsath has reverted the link on his page twice and I don't know whether I'm allowed to keep reverting back - could someone please advise/act and maybe take it from his edit history. Thanks Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 13:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction he has not reverted but thinks I'm supressing information. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank Sophia and the others for trying to help; I would very much like the histories and archives of this personal information removed, if possible. KHM03 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I just did User talk:KHM03. Jkelly 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in a lot more places than that I'm afraid - check the contributions for HK30 (talk · contribs) and SimplePilgrim (talk · contribs). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

• Lester Darling (talk · contribs). Reverting to versions by previous sockpuppets on several articles, such as the little-edited Battery electric factory flat truck. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Someone else can clean up. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Can do. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

XLR8TION

XLR8TION (talk · contribs) is persistently reinserting unsourced material in the articles Quentin Elias and Junior Vasquez. We've received a complaint specifically about this content, so I'm insisting that this needs to be properly sourced or stay out. I've tried to point XLR8TION in the direction of the appropriate policies, but he seems to be blowing this off. As I'm about to use a third revert today, I need people to assist in enforcing the sourcing requirement. --Michael Snow 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Why is the talk page empty? One would think that the appropriate first place to discuss such issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it relates to two articles and only involves one user, I took it up directly on User talk:XLR8TION. --Michael Snow 04:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

XLR8TION has reverted now, with edit summaries that clearly indicate this is original research. Can somebody reverse that, please? --Michael Snow 05:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary on QE is self-incriminating: he actually called someone to confirm QE was employed there??? I reverted for you, because this smacks strongly of self-promotion, but this discussion really should take place on the relevant Talk pages. Frankly, this guy looks nn and AfD looks like a plan to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Waitaminute ... it looks like my revert is gone and there is one by User:jpgordon instead. But I saved, and saw the save work. Wathappun...? Robert A.West (Talk) 05:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think when two of make identical reverts, only one of them shows up on the log. It's just to confuse us and make us think more than we need to. Anyway, the editor has been 3RR'd; perhaps someone other than Michael might stick his nose in and explain the subtleties of WP:NOR to him. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've left notes on both of the talk pages about this. I'll need people to keep on eye on it when he gets back from the block, though. I'm afraid I wouldn't support an AfD in this case. From what I can tell, his French boy-band was significant enough, see fr:Alliage (groupe). --Michael Snow 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I took the responsibility to explain. User_talk:XLR8TION#No_Original_Research. I hope I did a good job. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng's and Kurt Leyman's revert wars

Hello,

For a few days now, Kurt Leyman and SuperDeng are revert-warrying on the article Battle of Budapest. Kurt keeps on editing the article, and Superdeng reverts it. The problem is that Kurt himself has a quite heavy backlog of doubtful edits and while some of his edits are quite good, some are not.

I was about to propose to both of them to take their respective edits, sort them (since I wrote the orginal page, I know the subject) and create a new version, asking them to no longer bicker on this page. But I need your support for that.

Incidentally, Woohookitty advised me to post here too.

Thanks in advance. grafikm_fr 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to add that Kurt and SuperDeng are basically following each other all over the site. Kurt will change a number and then Deng will reverse it or vice versa. We have:

• Battle of Budapest - Kurt changing a number and Deng changing it back.
• Battle of Debrecen - Kurt changing a number and Deng changing it back.
• Battle of Berlin - Kurt changing numbers and Deng changing it back.
• Battle of Greece - Kurt changing a number and Deng changing it back.
• Battle of the River Plate - Kurt changing the "victory" section and Deng changing it back.
• Second Battle of Kharkov - Kurt changes the "victory" section and Deng changes it back. And it happened again and again.

And this is just a small sample. If you look at Kurt's edits and Deng's edits, you will see that they have been following each other for about 2 weeks now. Both have been blocked at least once in that span. I believe that they've each earned another block. For how long I don't know. But this has to be stopped. I stopped counting at 10 articles that these 2 have been warring with each other. And they keep calling each other vandals and neither have been willing to really talk to each other except in edit summaries. I find this one particularly bad because they are basically saying the EXACT same thing and yet can't even agree on that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick reply Woohookitty. Indeed, these two are following each other on the site. However, it would appear that Kurt changes sensitive content on these pages. In the case of Battle of Budapest, however, all of his edits are actually quite good, improving my original English, but two or three totally **** up the page. And SuperDeng reverts them back in bulk. I would like to take their respective edits, mix them and modify my own original article with those. However, in order to do this, they must stop their edit wars... Hence my post here... :) grafikm_fr 11:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

We're speaking from 2 different perspectives. :) You are looking at a resolution on this one article, which is fine. I'm looking at it as an admin...and we have to stop ridiculous revert wars like this, especially when it encompasses several articles. As I said, what I have above is just a sample. I could've presented several more cases. If it was a major WWII battle, they've revert warred on in the last 2 weeks. It needs to be stopped. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right of course. I just noticed that my post is totally stupid from this perspective... Sorry about that. I totally agree with you - these two have to be stopped since they're both a bit faulty... grafikm_fr 11:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No no not at all. :) It's not stupid. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I saw this on Battle of Sevastopol as well, earlier in the month. Just warring over the numbers... Shimgray | talk | 19:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Kurt, knowing Deng's irascible character, provokes him on purpose. Deng added important material to many articles, which I've never seen Kurt do. His contributions to Wikipedia are limited to pushing pro-Axis POV in numerous articles, though he occasionally makes grammatical improvements too. For example, in Winter War he sparkled an edit war by repeatedly changing neutral phrases like "The Soviets failed to take advantage of their numerical superiority at the start of the war" to heavily POV stuff like "As a result of both arrogance and incompetence, the Soviets also failed to achieve a decisive superiority at the start of the war". I can't see other reason for adding such sentences as "Sentimental Finnish veterans frequently boast that for every one Finnish soldier who died, ten Soviets lost their lives in the Winter War" - except pushing one's POV and provoking revert wars. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be my feeling too... But it gives even less excuses to Kurt... grafikm_fr 12:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, Kurt should be blocked. Frankly, I don't care who gets blocked, but that's the only way I see this subsiding. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Kurt should be blocked too. Now, you're the admin, so you decide... :) grafikm_fr 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wish I could. But I've retired from that mess, which is why it's posted here. You have 2 strong users with 2 strong POVs who refuse to compromise. It's deadly. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is, Kurt have been found guilty of sneaky vandalism. I've read Deng's talkpage, and I see nothing as serious on his own. So IMHO, the problem is not symetric. grafikm_fr 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Deng isn't exactly a saint. TRUST me. :) Both users could use a nice kick in the pants. Whatever Kurt has done, there is no excuse for revert warring. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your help

I really would like to ask you to make me a favour: please unblock User:ROGNNTUDJUU! I think that is a mistake and this user needs a second chance. Best regards, --StabiloBoss 13:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

ROGNNTUDJUU! is an abusive sockpuppet of De mortuis.... De mortuis is not currently blocked, so there is no need to unblock the account he is no longer using. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the sock puppet and the sock master weren't confused here, but I agree that one account should be enough. Does it matter which of the two is blocked? Kusma (討論) 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I responded to the call of this user. Let's unblock him first and see how he will behave. I think is better to give him a chance. --StabiloBoss 18:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do they need two accounts? Jkelly 21:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. But if there are two users then it should be unblocked. Let us assume this. StabiloBoss 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that one account should be enough, and ROGNNTUDJUU! is not a good user name. Jonathunder 22:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Let us see him how he will behave. ok? StabiloBoss 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Per the block log, Dave Gerard, who has checkuser ability, has blocked this account indef as an abusive sockpuppet. If you would like to ask Dave Gerard to reconsider his decision you are free to do so. Jonathunder 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's give him another chance and we'll see about it. Seems fair enough. StabiloBoss 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply of ROGNNTUDJUU! from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ROGNNTUDJUU%21#Unblock_request:

I only use this one account, which is blocked. I had another account, which was accused of sockpuppetry apparently for the same reason that we have a shared router for the whole house as I explain above. I abandoned the other account and do not even remember the password. David Gerard did not get back to me when I emailed him, nor did Kelly Lynn who according to David had also done a user check. ROGNNTUDJUU! (who wonders why this should not be a good user name.) 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Numerous userpages marked for speedy deletion

At CAT:CSD, there are tons of pages marked for speedy deletion with the comment "I don't want it anymore.". Also targeted are countervandalism pages. The page histories don't show the additions of the templates, so I don't know what is happening. I think this is a major vandal attack.--Adam ^(talk) 14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That must have been the addition by Coolcat of a speedy template to User:Coolcat/Wdefcon 5 that triggered this (already reverted). A null edit on all these pages should normalize the situation. Kusma (討論) 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And we don't need to do null edits anymore, the joblist should take care of it in a few moments. --Syrthiss 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That is good news. How long does that usually take? Kusma (討論) 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

From my experience, at worst a few hours. They've all been re-sorted already so its < 5 hrs ;). Someone posted a link to the page that shows how many items are in the joblist the other day, but I wasn't able to find it again. --Syrthiss 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he made the change to all of the 'DefCon' pages (0-5). I wound up marking them all with 'noinclude' tags so that those pages can be considered without impacting all the userpages which link to them (I tracked it down because I noticed right off that I recognized alot of the impacted users as vandal fighters). Generally I don't think that this meets the speedy deletion criteria, but there are obviously some touchy issues here so I left the 'delete because' notice on the pages themselves while we sort it out. --CBDunkerson 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The defcon 5 page has just been wrongly deleted as a G7 although it doesn't fall under G7. Kusma (討論) 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And has been moved to User:Zsinj/Wdefcon 5 so everything should be fine and back to normal now. Kusma (討論) 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Syrthiss, the job queue length can be viewed at Special:Statistics.--Commander Keane 21:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Woot, thanks! --Syrthiss 02:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Alexander 007

Hello felows! I want to signal that user:Alexander brought to myself and to other user personal attacks and insults, and he vandalized my user page.I would like that an admin blocks him for he did. You can take a look there:[[174]], [[175]]. I beg you to take a look there and tell me if this block is possible. Regards, NorbertArthur 14 April 2006

Why are you writing in Romanian on an English encyclopedia? 68.166.50.142 16:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For what really happened, see User talk:Gutza#Salut. Alexander 007 19:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis

On Talk:Jami#Personal-attack_edit_summaries.2C_etc. Mel has falsely accused me of making personal attacks against another editor and has continued to do after several other editors and myself called him on this and pointed out flaws in his argument, while I have also pointed out that he ignores the comments of another editor. I consider this blatant harassment. SouthernComfort 19:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You are using your edit summaries to snark about another editor's contributions: [176], [177], [178]. Don't do that. If you want to quibble about whether or not it is violating WP:NPA, see also WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT. Whatever your dispute is, please try to work together in a collaborative and collegial manner. Jkelly 21:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations

• 67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have tagged my userpage with the suspected sockpuppet template. Both of these users have about 5 edits and have accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Theonlyedge despite the fact that since February, we've only edited one common page (check contribs). I suspect that the above Anon users are sockpuppets of Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was recently blocked for running a sockfarm. Is there a proper way to go about taking down the tag and proving I'm not a puppet? pm_shef 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally those sock tags have to be backed up by some sort of evidence. You can request a checkuser on yourself, I suppose, at WP:RCU if you like. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted both their edits to yours and Theonlyedge's page, and am about to warn them that it is best not to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without documentation (and even then I'd feel better if it was primarily done by an admin). --Syrthiss 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now doing exactly the same thing. user:pm shef and user:Theonlyedge's user pages are both now semi-protected so they're hitting the user talk pages instead. The contribs do not suggest any relationship between the two users. Thryduulf 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note that these IP addresses are in the same range of Bell Canada numbers previously used by suspected socks of Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs) and/or VaughanWatch (talk · contribs). Thatcher131 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a large WP:RFCU request pending on all these users/ips and more - Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#64.231.242.202 (talk • contribs) and 69.156.148.61 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 09:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of talk page discussion text

FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun removing my discussion comments from the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page, twice now [179] [180]

I consider the talk page an accurate record of discussions, and too remove such text is misleading to other editors, and against Wiki policy on Wikipedia:Civility. I feel that FeloniousMonk should be blocked from editing the policy page and its talk page. --Iantresman 20:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I was just in the process of looking at what's happening at that page, because I was wondering if you had violated 3RR. I'm not saying you have, mind you, because I've just started to look. Regardless of that, could I ask you not to try adding new material to the policy pages without consensus? Particularly at the moment, because a few policy talk pages have been under some pressure of late from new editors (I'm thinking of -Lumiere in particular), whereas these are pages that need to be stable, and I was actually thinking of protecting NPOV if the reverting continued. Anyway, I'll go and take a closer look now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just confirming that you didn't violate 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't discuss the issue, becaues FeloniousMonk has moved my comments from the page, as mentioned above. That is the problem --Iantresman 20:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian, having looked into this more closely, I now see you appear to be continuing in the footsteps of -Lumière while he's away. I ask you most sincerely not to do this. I don't know what the particular issues are on the NPOV page, because it's a page I don't often edit, but I saw your comments on the RfC about how WP:V must apply to policy pages too, and of course it doesn't, so you and -Lumière have simply misunderstood how policy works on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that necessarily means you're wrong on the substantive issue under dispute (because I don't know what that is), but I can see from the comments you've left on the RfC that your reasoning and approach isn't good. -Lumière is a very troublesome, inexperienced editor who keeps changing his user name so that it's harder to keep track of exactly how troublesome he's being. Any editor who supports him is likely to be put in the same category, perhaps unfairly. Therefore, can I ask you (for your own sake as well as for the stability of the policy page) to take a rest from this for a few weeks, and perhaps return to it when the -Lumière issue has been dealt with and things have calmed down? As for the talk-page refactoring, -Lumière has caused havoc on numerous policy talk pages, so it's not surprising that editors on Talk:NPOV have decided to userfy his or similar posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to discuss this with you further, here or elsewhere? --Iantresman 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is probably best, or you can e-mail me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, at FeloniousMonk's request, I have read through all the talk:Neutral point of view archives to discover where the issues I have brought up, have been discussed before. While "Undue weight" has been discussed at length, the points I mention on (a) verifiability (b) paraphrasing, do not appear to have been mentioned before. I can't prove that, as I can't easily show what hasn't been discussed, but I am sure that FeloniousMonk can easily provide a quote from the archives to show that it has.

So effectively, ANY discussion on "Undue weight" is now beyond discussion; any issue that anyone brings up on "Undue weight" may be now be deemed Lumière-esque, and squashed.

Even my brief discussion on Undue weight, that was moved to my talk page [181] resulted in an acknowledgement that a link to the "original email" may be warranted. And there is even the suggestions that "Jimbo is not the supreme lawgiver" (which seems contrary to the Wiki Policy page), and also deserves discussion (and again I can't find previous discussion). There is even some discussion on the subject in my "absence" [182] but of course it is very one-sided.

SlimVirgin, the policy pages themselves encourage discussion. My discussion issues appear to be unique, and hence valid. Consquently their removal from the Talk page is unwarranted, and other editors certainly shouldn't be able to choose which issues to address, let alone whether to remove them. --Iantresman 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:82.78.101.60

This anon IP is vandalizing my user talk page, User talk:Alexander 007. It claims that I am a "femme". Please either block the IP or protect my talk page after I remove some of its posts. Alexander 007 21:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when asking a person if he/she is a woman or not means vandalism? 82.78.101.60 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when asking a person if he/she is a woman or not means vandalism? 82.78.101.60 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You were not asking, you stated "Cette Alexandre est une.. femme", no question mark. Alexander 007 21:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

...maybe because you act like one?...like a femme? don't cry baby like a woman...be a man! You called me bitch once but you're more woman than I am!

Where have I "cried baby like a woman"? Link it. In this case, the woman would be User:NorbertArthur (excuse me), the way he keeps complaining about a minor insult. Alexander 007 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you start. Jkelly 21:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You were offended if that person called you woman! You deserve it as you have reacted so far. Maybe you hide your identity under the skin of a weak woman as you pretend to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.24.56.186 (talk • contribs)

Who the hell are you anon? Stop harassing and making bizarre statements. Alexander 007 21:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alex I'm Node. I loved you all the time. You saw my picture. I'm now in Japan.

OK Node, I guess I apologize for some things I did. You can understand that I'm heterosexual, and I understand that you're not. It's cool that you're in Japan, I know you're interested in the Ainu and other topics around there. However, even if I were a woman (which I'm not), you're impression of "weak woman" reflects once again your opinion of women, perhaps. Alexander 007 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out this blatant vandalism done by it:[183]. Alexander 007 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you meant this edit. I left a Template:Bv warning. Jkelly 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

The banned User:Bonaparte has recently been attacking Romania and Moldova-related articles, and doesn't seem to be giving up. For evidence that it's him, see User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry.

Right now he has been using open proxies to target the Transnistria page. Does anyone have any suggestions of what should be done? --Khoikhoi 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection?--MONGO 01:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Roitr

New IP 88.152.207.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is used to evade block (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr for previous activity) --22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

209.178.163.128

209.178.163.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has threatened legal action with regards to the Cedar Point article, as can be seen here. Isopropyl 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --InShaneee 23:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it a proxy? Please do not indef block any IP addresses except open proxies. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, changed to 3 months. --InShaneee 01:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Threats on several wikipedians

• 68.96.23.7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• 68.13.182.148 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• PMP (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Axl Reisdorff (talk • contribs • Reisdorff page moves • block user • Reisdorff block log)

Regarding [184] and [185]:

I love Revenge I along with User:68.13.182.148.,Axl Reisdorff,User:68..96.23.7. We will get revenge on Evan Robidoux,Drini,Samuel Blanning,Christopher Knight,and Master of Puppets.

(...)

P.S. Preston create new name on saturday during the day make DN1.I'll be on the computer at my Grandmas I'll create DN3. By the way I logged in as PMP. April 14, 2006.

Also [186]:

Hey Preston what's up when do we attack?

Now. Create a username. I'll only be here for afew minutes!PMP 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I've indef blocked PMP.

Also, quoting Essjay regarding 68.13.182.148:

Checkuser reveals this account has been used for making death threats via logged-in accounts. As there is no indication of use by anyone but the vandal, I have blocked for a month, and will consider a longer block if the problem continues after the month expires. Essjay Talk • Contact 00:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that no good edits come from that ip, I've indef blocked it

Regarding 68.96.23.7: [187] [188] [189]

Now, those ips and users usually claim to be sorry apologize: [190]. Do not fall into it, check the blocklogs, those have a long history.

Due to [191]:

We formed the DN group I will never tell anyone what it means

so it's suggested to indef block any accounts of the form DN* who engage in vandalism or threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drini (talk • contribs)

Phillipsbourg

I've temporarily blocked Phillipsbourg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) following a spate of blanking another user's user and talk pages. On reviewing Phillipsbourg's contributions I'm struck that even his very first edits are highly combative, in a manner one more generally finds in reincarnations. I wonder if those more familiar with our WW2 articles might review his contribs, incase his pattern seems familiar. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam at Wikipedia

The Psycho is repeatedly adding linkspam to his off-site project to Wikipedia. I have reverted 3 times. Before I revert again, I would like outside agreement (or disagreement) with my interpretation that this link constitutes link-spamming and can therefore be reverted as vandalism. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 01:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth??? Oh yes, I think that qualifies as linkspam. --InShaneee 01:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked The Psycho for one month for linkspamming at Wikipedia and Talk:Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:KGBS is indefinitely as a sock-puppet of User:The Psycho, who attempted to use this acount to evade a block. Johntex\^talk 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for User:Spinoor and User:RoverST both are sock-puppets being used by The Psycho to try to evade the block. Johntex\^talk 01:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 3 more socks indefinitely. Johntex\^talk 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few more socks blocked indef already, and the talk page is now semi-protected. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we dealing with User:Wik here? Check this one out, and look at his first edit: Andreis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- I need someone who has been around for a couple years: wasn't he obsessed with Andorra and 1939? Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed Wik who was creating "Riveraz"-anagram sockpuppets re: Andorra and "not 1939" some weeks ago. Creating whole armies of sockpuppets to fight edit wars is certainly his style. -- Curps 06:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - check out the edit history for the Piła page. --Khoikhoi 06:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have just blocked User:SlashDot for 48 hours for being a suspected sock-puppet of User:The Psycho and for wiki-stalking me to undo my rollback of some of The Psycho's edits. Johntex\^talk 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Account had been blocked back on April 3 as well, with similar observations... tho SlashDot had appeared to stop reverting your reverts prior to being blocked so it could have been a mistake. I'd say let the block stand and see what explanation they give if they want to toss {{unblock}} on their page. --Syrthiss 02:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

220.239.147.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User has repeatedly posted what apprears to be someone's personal information to Joseph Stalin. History should be wiped. Please. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Some POV pushing

I do not really know where to bring this, so please direct me if neede to another place. There is a discussion going on at Naturism about whether the page should be renamed to Social nudity. The discussion is not going anywhere, and one person has now decided that the first sentence of the page should be changed already [192] [193] [194]. I have reverted already two time and mentioned (in the edit summary and at the talk page) why the first sentence should stay for the time being as is in line with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles, but this person has apparently set his/her mind to getting his/her POV pushed through. An ideas how top handle this? KimvdLinde 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

After some digging in the page history, I found the following. On 25 March 2006 Sceptre moved both Naturism and Nudism to Clothes free movement [195] and [196] to repair a crude cut/paste move (cut/paste move fix), a consequence of moving the page content of these pages to the Clothes free movement page by User:Dandelion1 aka User:Dandelion at March 13 see page history dif. He moved several related pages to similar pages as well [197]. Unfortunatly, the page histories of Nudism and Clothes free movement are unavailable for me before April 12 2006. Coincedently, the Clothes free movement saw its light just months before at the beginning of Januari 2006 when the commercial The International Naturists Association (INA) changed its name in Januari 2006 to ClothesFree International, Inc. see [198]. This same person is now frantically pushing for the change of the page name from Naturism to Social nudity. Could someone check when the Clothes free movement page was created and who did it? I would also like to get some input, as I have the feeling this is not really encyclopedic anymore, but commercial. KimvdLinde 06:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The original, rather well written page was changed drastically between feb 7 and feb 17 by this user [199].KimvdLinde 06:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page problem

Following an unexpectedly angry reaction to a comment on an AfD vote, I placed a comment on User:JJay's talk page, seeking to understand his motivation. Both during and after a largely fruitless discussion, JJay has made a number of unexplained changes to my words: [200], [201], [202]. I then chose to remove my content from his talk page [203], not wanting to be misrepresented, regardless of severity. JJay reverted without explanation [204]. I then posted a request that he remove my words himself, or restore them to their original form [205], which JJay has also reverted [206]. JJay has a history of heated exchanges with other editors, and I see little other recourse than to ask for admin intervention. Should this be an inappropriate request for WP:AN/I, please notify me so I can post to the correct page. Thanks. Tijuana Brass 03:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I made no material changes to this user's comments except to remove a misleading string of text while leaving the underlying Wp:AGF link the user had hidden [207]. Besides that, I changed the heading to the section- which is my right- and changed the link to the AFD page. I have very good reasons for doing this, because any message on my user page brings certain editors rushing to the AfD in question to vote against whatever stance I have taken. I reiterate that no significant changes were made to the comments. Nevertheless, there is a very clear warning notice on the user page that explains that messages can and will be edited for content. Besides all that, I have made no personal attacks against this editor and fail to see why he has addressed himself to this forum or on what basis he can make a broad statement regarding my history of exchanges with other editors, particularly since our exchange was never particularly heated. -- JJay 04:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he's wiki-stalking me as well. I'll leave all other judgments as to WP:V WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and related issues (for both him and myself) to third parties. Tijuana Brass 04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking??? That's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. You should realize that this is a public forum. Like for most editors, it is on my watchlist. Naturally, I'm going to respond when comments are left here that concern me. That is most decidely not stalking. I also frankly don't understand why you are citing WP:V. -- JJay 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(changed WP:V to WP:CIVIL, typo) Tijuana Brass 04:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking??? That's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. You mean like claiming, "any message on my user page brings certain editors rushing to the AfD in question to vote against whatever stance I have taken," which you did -- oh look -- two postings above it? Boy, that's a fairly serious accusation for which I hope you have some proof. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

JJay's statement above isn't an accusation of anybody in particular. And there's proof like this on his talk page (not exactly the same, I realize, but it seems related). In any case, Tijuana Brass doesn't seem to have much of a case here from what I've seen. The only questionable edit linked here is [208] which does actually change the meaning of a sentence that didn't sound particularly offensive originally, but the meaning change was almost certainly unintentional considering the context it's in and his explanation of the change here. As for the revertions he made later, I don't see anything wrong with those either, it's his talk page and he wasn't removing warnings from it. Maybe he hasn't always acted as friendly as possible but I don't see any clear violations here, not even of WP:CIVIL. –Tifego^(t) _{07:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

JJay's statement above isn't an accusation of anybody in particular. It's an accusation of stalking by individuals whom he coyly refuses to name -- so it's still an accusation of stalking, period/full stop. All in peculiar defense of making a misleading word change in someone else's words; again, period/full stop. Not a violation of civility, just of intellectual honesty and of consistency. --Calton | Talk 11:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Carlton, let's not cloud the issue. I have never stalked this user. In fact, the only interaction I have ever had with TijuanaBrass was one AfD nom, my responses to his comments on my talk page, and this forum. That is not stalking by any stretch of the imagination. It is also undeniably a different beast entirely from the stalking I have experienced, which has involved editor(s) repeatedly editing the same pages I am editing, shadowing my AfD participation, and otherwise taking actions that are designed to harrass. With much of this action using the talk page as the jumping off point. However, I have never accused TijuanaBrass of this, so it is not exactly pertinent to this discussion. It is also not an example of intellectual dishonesty. As to the small change made to one of TijuanaBrass's comments, it was excessively minor and not in any way misleading, nor was it intended to mislead. I tend to find long embedded links under unrelated phrases not particularly civil. If he wanted to, he could have changed that minor removal back. Instead he removed all of his comments and the section header and made an uncivil edit summary. Since unlike most editors, I have never removed any comments from the talk page, including attacks, complaints or messsages from vandals, I would rather his comments remain, particularly since I took the time to respond. After considering this overnight, and in the interest of putting this to bed, I have returned the five words that were removed- i.e. "perhaps you're looking at things the wrong way". We may all be looking at things in the wrong way, but whatever the case, I am obviously more than happy to let this user express himself in his own words. -- JJay 12:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

BLOCKED/HARRASSED

This is the message that I get when I attempt to edit anything.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by GraemeL for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Brandubh Blathmac". The reason given for Brandubh Blathmac's block is: "Sockpuppet"." Your IP address is 216.194.3.216.

I have denied being the sockpuppet they accuse me of, and I don't even know this chap they insist on conflating me with, but I do know that I have yet to be provided either with a scintilla of proof of these allegations, or an arbitration hearing at which I can speak on my own behalf and will abide by whatever the arbitrators feel is fair. They have even accused me to "hopping IPs" even though I only use one computer, the same computer, my home PC!!

It is NOT FAIR that this group - Jtdirl, Demiurge, Camillus, GraemeL., Ali-oops, et al) can collude and censor me indefinitely/ permanently because they regard me as an inconvenience. I refuse to be cowed into editing anonymously or being forced from the Wikipedia community.

I know I have done good things and I know there are revisionists and censors prowling Wikipedia to revise or airbrush their own pet topics, and I have been on the watch against them, particularly Demiurge, who is nothing more than a WANNABE CENSOR who has personally gutted or tried to gut anything he personally does not like, from war criminal Ante Pavelic to the history of domestic terrorism in the United States to pre-Code movies/history of film censorship in the US to the refugee policies of Eamon de Valera's Irish Free State during WW2, et al. He has been caught red-handed by other Wikipedians (third parties, if you will) in this habit several times, and been forced to back down. I don't know if he is on anyone's payroll or if he is working pro bono, but I do know he is a censor and a review of his edits will confirm this.

Review their edits (especially Demiurge) and their history of interwiki collusion regarding myself if you do not believe me. I have read some of their missives to each other including the one where Graeme L. told Camillus and some of the others that he was "getting to the point" where he was going to "indefinitely block" me whenever I log on because I would not let them push me around or threaten me, not because of any editorial abuses he could point to.

I admit that I am not perfect, and that I do occasionally respond emotively to certain issues (such as the Holocaust, for instance, and that caused me to lose the respect of Bridesmill who accused me of failing to amuse him/her and of being "disingenuous"), but I stand by the overwhelming majority of my edits and I should be judged on my contributions to Wikipedia, and not on the whims or dislikes of a few who are acting in concert against me, and accusing me of being someone else.

Administrators have more important functions than harrassing those they don't agree with -- such as protecting Wikipedia's name and respectability from those who would exploit the occasional and unpreventable error (such as the folks at wikipediawatch.org).

Brandubh Blathmac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.57.66 (talk • contribs)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com, and more particularly Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com#Evidence of sock-puppetry. Demiurge 09:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu (talk · contribs) violating revert parole again (April 14)

At 1:30 and 18:10 on 14 April, Leyasu (talk · contribs) reverted "vandalism" Children of Bodom, the second time stating that they would have the page protected due to "continued vandalising". However, the edits that Leyasu was reverting were not vandalism, and most of the people who had discussed the matter on Talk:Children of Bodom disagreed with Leyasu's assessment of the band's genre. Please block Leyasu for violating the revert parole which was established as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu. [209] [210] --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr Les Sachs (Suspected) at Patricia Cornwell

85.144.140.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Suspected to be Dr Les Sachs) [211] continues to add defamatory style information related to Patricia Cornwell across article and user space. [212] [[213] Is also making attacks against DreamGuy. FloNight ^talk 08:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

HK enforcement

HK, aka Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous ArbCom rulings:
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others
  • The previous ArbCom cases put HK on POV parole and Probation, forbid him from using sock puppets, and agreed that any three administrators may agree on editing bans on specific articles and a general ban of up to one year, in addition to other provisions.

• Other pages:
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive17#Removal of NPOV dispute tags
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35#172
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive7#Complaint about re-insertions of LaRouche original research
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive4#Herschelkrustofsky
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive45#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Herschelkrustofsky (current)

• Topics from which HK is currently banned:
• "any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche" (" Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article.")
• Chip Berlet
• Political Research Associates
• Dennis King

• HK has engaged recently in disruptive editing and promotion of LaRouche theories in these additional articles, topics about which LaRouche has strong opinions:
• American System (economics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anti-Defamation League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dirigisme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Synarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• HK has engaged in edit warring, promotion of Lyndon LaRouche's theories, possible sock puppet abuse (User:BirdsOfFire), negative personal comments [214], and general disruption of the project, all in violation of specific previous ArbCom enforcements for those same behaviors. I believe some remedial action is required. I propose that the articles he has been disrupting (ADL, American System, Dirigisme, and Synarchism) be added to the list of articles he is banned from, and that he be banned from general editing for two weeks. -Will Beback 08:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin endorsements

(Three required)

1. Will Beback 08:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Sounds reasonable to me. Pretty gross violation.
3. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Bishonen | talk 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC) — can't count.
5. Thryduulf 12:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC) — only 3 are required but more endorsement can't harm

Discussion

Darin Fidika (talk · contribs)

(Moved from above because of new development) Darin Fidika (talk · contribs) has been adding large numbers of articles that are apparently based on The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and not on historical reality -- but apparently hasn't been doing it maliciously, although his failure to state that these are not historical makes the articles, on their face, not accurate. I have no energy to track down every single one of these to verify for historical accuracy, after it took me 15 minutes to do one (Liu Shao). Any ideas? --Nlu (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: can someone with a bot simply tag his most recent batch of Three Kingdoms-related articles with {{verify}}? That way, hopefully someone will check them out later. --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since then, Darin Fidika has ignored my warning on the talk page and continued to make edits based on fiction as if they were fact. I wrote him another message on the talk page, but I don't expect a response. Thoughts on what to do? Should the edits be treated as vandalism? I'm trying to tag the unverifiable ones with {{fiction}}, but he's doing so at a relatively high speed. --Nlu (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the usertalk page, that's a lot of ignoring, not just of you but other editors as well. And the editing continues unabated. While one doesn't like to block a (presumed) good-faith newbie, sometimes it can be the only way of getting the person's attention. I'd block for three hours if I were you, with a kindly explanatory message saying you'll unblock if they respond. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

User:ImpuMozhi has removed citations multiple times and put :{{unreferenced}}, in multiple sections.

He has done this on rathore page. This is vandalism [[215]], [[216]]. Can someone stop him? Dhruv Singh 11:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

86.128.222.36

86.128.222.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the IP address used by Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been banned recently for using sockpuppet account Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in combination with the prievious account to register multiple votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (fourth nomination), and for vandalising my talk page. He has since used this IP to reinsert his votes and has not ignored any warnings given to him. He insists that User:Rennix is not a sockpuppet of his, though this has been confirmed to be so by an administrator. - Conrad Devonshire 13:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That Rennix is my sockpuppet has NOT been confirmed, it is only suspected, and is at request for CheckUser at the moment. I am re-inserting the votes to the vfd because it is not up to him to remove them, but the closing admin. 86.128.222.36 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are indeed Skinmeister? The RCU oncly concerns Skinmeister and Rennix, not 86.128.222.36. It certainly seems to be the case. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm Skinmeister, but the IP address I used when logged in will be different, although still starting 86.128 86.128.222.36 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Rennix has been blocked indefinately as a sockpuppet of User:Skinmeister and its only contributions have been seconding votes by User:Skinmeister in previous nominations for deletion, and removing notices from its user page stating that it is a suspected sockpuppet. I think that that is evidence enough to convict him of sockpuppetry until can prove that User:Rennix is not his sockpuppet. Could a temporary block please be administered? - Conrad Devonshire 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rennix was blocked indefinately for abusive edit summaries, not for being my sockpuppet. 86.128.222.36 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)