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

Sussexman and legal threats.

On June 8th, User:Sussexman and User:Edchilvers had the following exchange:

*Comment Utter rubbish. GLF is not protected by the rehabilitation of offenders act and besides, the content of his Wikipedia article included a blatent falsehood in that it suggested he had been cleared of all charges on appeal. Seeing as the matter was widely reported in the national newspapers and has thus been in the public domain for some time I fail to see the harm in mentioning it as it is the truth.

- User:Edchilvers + User:Edchilvers.

• Comment: You're wrong Mr.Chilvers, as you will soon discover. Sussexman 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[1]

Today, Ed Chilvers received a letter from Gregory Lauder-Frost's lawyers threatening him with legal action. Sussexman's "as you will soon discover" would be a reference to this and should be taken as a legal threat. If Sussexman is not Gregory Lauder-Frost then he is intimate enough with him to be able to pass on a legal threat. He should be banned from wikipedia until the matter is resolved and until GLF either concludes or agrees to withdraw any threat of legal action. Homey 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thats what you'd like us to believe because you are and have always been a major player against GLF, his article, and anyone remotely associate with him. Anyone breaking our laws will "soon find out" and that is very standard parlance. You cannot link Sussexman with this letter. That it may have arrived at the same time as these discussions were continuing is merely co-incidental, Sherlock. Do you honestly think that banning one, two, three, or more people unless they contact someone they havn't seen for years, possibly a decade or more, and tell him to withdraw a perfectly justificable private and personal legal action will work? Justice does not operate that way. 81.129.155.181 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How would they have gotten his mailing address? Paul Cyr 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By googling "Ed Chilvers" or looking his name up in a British database. It seems from Ed Chilvers' web page that he has been the target of legal threats from Michael Keith Smith, a friend of Lauder-Frost's, in the past so it's possible Lauder-Frost already had Chilvers' contact info. Homey 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Got any proof, like a scan of the letter? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed Chilvers mentions it here[2] - he sent me excerpts of the letter after I emailed him about it.Homey 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds pretty serious. I'd recommend blocking until this can be looked into at the very least. --InShaneee 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been in a content dispute with Sussexman over Gregory Lauder-Frost so I'm not the person to implement a block. Homey 19:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Sussexman has been consistently disruptive over any attempt to include content not flattering to Lauder-Frost. William Pietri put in some tremendous work digging up newspaper reports and showed that Lauder-Frosts's conviction for theft was the single most widely reported fact about him; Sussexman and a couple of anonymous editors were determined to remove this or at least relegate it to euphemistic references. Just zis Guy you know? 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Glad you said "digging up" the dirt. Bit of agive away as to the agenda here, really. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And this post, which he intended for another user, is fairly close to a legal threat. [3]

• That's just tripe and you know it. He is just stating a fact. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly believe that User:Sussexman is Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong beliefs seem to be only legitimate on your side of the fence. Pity its wrong. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, as the person who blocked User:Lightoftheworld, probably leading Sussexman to veil his threats. Be on the look out for meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman is not Lauder-Frost. Preposterous. Sussexman has defended the vitriolic attacks made upon someone he knew years ago and liked and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For values of vitriolic which include stating in terms of studied neutrality the fact that he was convicted of a substantial theft from the health authority where he worked. As far as I can the most of the vitriol has been directed against those who attempted to fix the inaccuracy of the article, by supporters of Lauder-Frost. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Here you go raving about the pre-1992 business as though it were last week and without the full knowledge of the matter. It was illegal to post details of this. Telling people this should be taken in good faith. Instead you ban people for it. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I give my absolute support to Sussexman. I too posted information on how this cabal of smearers were breaking UK law. Any normal person would be pleased for the advice. But this lot knew what they were doing and were absolutely determined to smear GLF all over the world. Sussexman appears to be the third person they have blocked for "legal threats", yet none of them appear to actually be the person concerned and so were not in a position to threaten anyone! Is it Wikipedia policy to block out everyone whom you get sick of arguing with? 195.134.6.202 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are acting as a proxy for someone else's legal threats, I consider it substantially identical to making them yourself. Wikipedia can't prove the relationship between the Wikipedia username User:Sussexman and the real-world individual Gregory Lauder-Frost, but I believe it does not really matter. Conveying threats from another non-Wikipedia party when one is not merely a messenger but an associate and clearly involved in an on-Wikipedia effort to suppress the same information differs little in actual effect from explicitly making them yourself.

I note also that GLF and/or friends and associates were quite happy to keep a lie on the page (that GLF was acquitted of theft on appeal) but are willing to sue on extremely flimsy grounds to hide the truth. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• All rubbish, I'm afraid. The only person on "flimsy" ground on these issues seems to be you and the little gang of demonisers. 81.131.122.17 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to have to inform you that I bear Gregory Lauder-Frost no personal ill will whatsoever. I don't know him, have never encountered him, and did not even know of his existence prior to your first postings on this page about it. I am, however, interested in keeping an honest historical record, concerned about an attempt to censor relevant truth, and opposed to those who seek to chill discussion and publication of facts by using dubious legal threats. A brief, half-sentence mention of Gregory Lauder-Frost's criminal conviction in 1992 - which could not be considered any kind of "youthful indiscretion" or to be prior to his public life - is not unfair to him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to update people on this, there've been further significant developments today. Amgine has reduced the entire article to a stub based on an apparent legal complaint (accessible through OTRS [4]). BradPatrick is already involved, though I'm not sure what the current state of play is. Further ongoing discussion is at Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost.-- ChrisO 18:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not accessible through OTRS - it's been placed in a restricted queue, as is common with privacy complaints. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. :-) -- ChrisO 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I must drudge up old conversation; Until there is conclusive proof that this was a reference to the legal threat/action, could we unblock? The content dispute is something to be handled by dispute resolution. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, no chance. We don't operate in a realm of absolute 'conclusive proof' here - but Sussexman is either Gregory Lauder-Frost or closely related to him and passing on threats from him. Either is blockable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NLT is clear that a block must be maintained until the legal dispute is resolved. It's worth pointing out also that there is essentially no content dispute - the facts are uncontested; the dispute is over whether certain of the facts (i.e. GLT's conviction) can be included in the article, under English and Scottish law. If the dispute is resolved satisfactorily then maybe we can think about unblocking Sussexman. -- ChrisO 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• You have deliberately tried to rubbish someone all over the WWW. naturally you will receive legal threats. People have to get on with their lives, not commit suicide because of your smears. 195.194.75.209 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I support Sussexman, who appears not to be the first but the third User banned for these "legal threats". If ten people had come on and pointed out that you were all breaking the law with your reckless smears would you ban everyone? The question is, do you people think you can do anything and no-one can tell you you're wrong? I think you've got a bloody cheek. What's even worse is User:Homeontherange's current efforts to delete numerous UK biographies because he doesn't like Monday Club Tories or that Sussexman had some hand in writing them. What a bunch. 81.129.155.181 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Sussexman. There is a small team of anti-rightists at work here. I believe this blocking to be wrong. Tempers may fray sometimes but you cannot accuse everyone of legal threats because they state the obvious to other users who are clearly breaking the law. It appears that no less than three users have now been blocked for pointing out that Gregory Lauder-Frost was being defamed on Wikipedia. Had ten or twenty users argued like this would they all be blocked too? Are this gang above reproach? 86.139.185.202 11:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not the issue here. Just because supporters of GLF say that UK law has been broken here does not mean to say that it is so. I refer people to the article on Stephen Fry which makes mention of his serving time in a Young Offenders Institution for cheque theft. If what the anonymous users are saying is true then this would also be illegal under UK law.And even if GLF does have a case then it is a civil as opposed to criminal matter. --Edchilvers 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Supporters of GLF? Does that include the UK government who pass the legislation, and the legal profession? 213.122.71.45 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't been mentioned here, but Sussexman and 213.122.46.228 also drove a good editor called Humansdorpie off Wikipedia completely, by a threat that included "Is this a threat? Yes, it certainly is." (See User:Humansdorpie and User_talk:Humansdorpie#Gregory Lauder-Frost) JackyR | Talk 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I must take issue with the ludicrous claims made via the last post by JackyR. The simple facts are that Humansdorpie spent a considerable amount of time goading and teasing Sussexman with a load of garbage. Eventually it clearly reached the stage where he had had enough and responded in kind. I can see from all those involved in this series of witch-hunts that it is perfectly all right for "the gang" to use snide and cynical remarks, to make absurd claims, and to delete articles that required a great deal of time and effort on the part of others. But it is entirely inappropriate to respond under this concerted pressure. One is then accused of being horrid. It must be hard being perfect. I'm not and doubtless Sussexman isn't either. 213.122.71.45 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of KraMuc

I have indefinitely blocked KraMuc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The immediate cause was this egregious personal attack, after I gave him this warning. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been involved in editing articles he's worked on, largely in regard to trying to explain/enforcec WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, whic he habitually ignores. In the past he has been blocked for a week for abusive sockpuppetry, and further back he made threats to take action against a user in real life. (Because the user in question was me, I elected to explain the rule in this regard and not to take further action at the time; however, he continues to allude to legal action in an effort to intimidate other users.) For more detail, read my warning.

Although the particular offense he just committed is not deserving of an indefinite block, on the heels of the warning I gave him it indicates to me that the user has no interest in following Wikipedia's rules and policies, either regarding basic civility or regarding our core rules like NPOV and NOR. He has been warned and reminded of these things an extraordinary number of times, with no result, so I no longer believe he has any potential to be an asset to the project.

If anyone has concerns about this blocking or is tempted to reduce it, I urge you to review the case in more detail. I am happy to provide more diffs and to discuss at length if requested. However, as his recent edit all by itself (his second block for personal attacks in the last few days) merits an extentended block anyway, I do request that time be allowed for discussion before the block is reduced. -- SCZenz 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the NOR issue is disputable, it seems to be in part a lack of providing references in time (and he excused himself of being temporarily unable to do so). However, WP:NPOV and WP:CIV are sufficient for an extended block IMHO. Harald88 12:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add WP:SOCK and WP:NPA as additional grounds, but on the other hand, I wish he could come back at some future point a changed man and learn to play by the WP rules. If Krause's work is verifiable and notable, regardless of its possible fringe position, WP would want it properly described, with appropriate due weighting alongside other views. It seems that KraMuc is eager to present this theory, but needs to learn a collaborative and civil WP style to do so. If he ever does come back, I would support a "one strike you're out" probation for civility. Crum375 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your points are both good. However, I think I gave him many extra chances to learn NPOV and NOR (and would never block for those alone anyway), and many extra chances on CIV and NPA as well. In the end, I gave him a "one strike and you're out" ultimatum on the civility, and he responded by making a scathing and deliberate personal attack on another user. I believed for a long time he might become a good contributor once he learned the rules, but at this point he's had every opportunity. -- SCZenz 15:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw some of his (and his puppets') vitriol and profanities in the meanwhile, and 'scathing' may be an understatement. I would say at least a year before any consideration for rehabilitation. Crum375 15:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• If he's threatening legal action, you should point out "no legal threats". If he fails to adhere to that, he can be blocked until he does. - 87.209.70.231 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record, now he's threatening real-life harassment [5]. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Too bad we can't do more than revert and block his socks on sight, which we were already doing. I recommend paying him as little attention as possible, and eventually he'll get bored. -- SCZenz 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspammer - Geraldine123

User:Geraldine123 is currently spamming many articles with links to interviews on suicidegirls.com. Imroy 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked . I could do with some help reverting. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All done. Thanks everyone. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If that wasn't a bot, she was a very dedicated spammer. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• We could simply have the site blacklisted... - Mgm|^(talk) 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wow that's alot of spamming, I do see no need for the site, so I agree with the blacklist Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be the minority view, but I don't see anything wrong with what she was doing. It's not like she was spamming one link over and over; she was adding a different link to each article, and the links in question seem relevant to the article content. User:Erck made similar edits to a bunch of articles last week, and I only noticed because the link he added to Amber Benson was potentially helpful in resolving a content dispute. Where's the beef? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All this proves is that it is an ongoing spam attack. I've removed all of the links added by the above user. I was reluctant to ask for the site to be added to the global spam list as I've heard of them before. However, it is a commercial site and somebody seems to be bent on spamming links to them. Any meta admins care to comment? --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that'd be a bit sharp, since we aren't sure that it's being done at the behest of the site, and up until now nobody's actually told the involved party to stop. Particularly in light of the fact that this isn't overtly commercial spam, like a guy selling penis pills, I think a less confrontational approach would be better. Give them a warning, maybe copy it to the SG site admin via e-mail, and if the behavior persists then add them to the blacklist. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User Netwriter

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum to raise this issue, however I am having a recurring problem with User:Netwriter. I have a long history of being harassed by this user in various internet venues, and he is currently posting my name (and those of several others) on his user page. I have removed mine and one other three times now, and have posted requests that he not put our names on his page. He continually reposts them and removes our requests from his talk page. He is also accusing us of vandalising his entries and conducting a vendetta against him, which is odd since the edit history proves we have done no such thing. I have made a concerted effort to avoid this guy, but I refuse to let him use my name without my permission. Could someone please look into this. Mine is not the only name he has been told to remove and has reposted. Thanks in advance. Nick Cook 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of the name isn't a violation of policy at all; The personal attack is. Someone already removed the full section; I watchlisted the page and will add a NPA warning if someone else hasn't by the time I finish typing this. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I too have added it to my watchlist. I'm on A LOT. --mboverload@ 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to toastify the entire page per WP:USER -- he's pretty blatantly just treating Wikipedia as a web host. He even refers to it as his "home page" on User talk:Netwriter. JDoorjam Talk 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Left this note. We'll see where it goes... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks nfor the help. Nick Cook 06:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series per WP:NBD (user's article on the subject was Afd'ed) and deleted the user page per WP:USER. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford again

This [6] threat of physical violence does not impress me. According to the article about the artery he's referring to, his threat would be lethal. I'd say another block is in order? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with block. The comment in question is threatening and unwarranted under any context -- Samir धर्म 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Bishonen | talk 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Cartoid sinus/fingernail conflation is never good. As to the broader question, having followed the recent BGC discussions here only cursorily, I wonder whether anyone attempted to ascertain the reasons for his recent devolution? I don't mean in any way to suggest that his behavior has been appropriate, but I always knew him to be a sincere, if sometimes abrasive, editor, one who surely favored logical debate over (largely incoherent) personal attack, and who would not, in any event, write in the fashion in which he now seems to write. Even for Wikipedia, where valuable contributors sometimes become disruptive with celerity, this change seems odd. Joe 05:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long? I can't say I'm familiar with this user's history or the type of threat. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This person should be blocked until Jimmy Wales says otherwise, this is physical threat which could be potentially lethal if acted upon. Yamaguchi先生 05:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Realized that User:Brian G. Crawford hadn't been informed of this conversation, and informed him on his talk page --Samir धर्म 05:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what country Mr. Crawford lives in, but in the United States and United Kingdom threats of violence like this constitute assault. Yamaguchi先生 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for ten days. I suspect Guy might be right that some extra-wiki goings on have put Brian on extreme edge, especially as he'd never been blocked until a week ago and has now been blocked twice for the same sort of lashing out. Of course, there's no excuse to threaten users with violence. Other admins are free to review the situation and my block, and change it if you feel it is appropriate to do so. JDoorjam Talk 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep I'd agree with that. Well you know that's supposed to be the point of blocks. Preventive, not punitive. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame. I think Brian has external issues, but I also think that User:Badgerpatrol did not exactly help here, epecially after I posted a header asking people not to troll. That said, the problem is with Brian not with other people (except in as much as they engage in the addition of ludicrous sophomoric content which annoys people like Brian and me, not that I'm saying Badgerpatrol does this since I've not looked). I'll email Brian again. Just zis Guy you know? 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite annoyed at being accused of trolling here, JzG. My commentto Brian was in response to this diatribe on my talk page, which (I think) was in turn prompted (in some tangential way) by this. In hindsight, I regret that last comment, but I certainly don't think it was offensive or provocative, nor out of keeping with the normal back and forth associated with RfA discussions. I haven't ever been engaged in any previous disputes with Brian (except for good-natured and good faith discussion on AfD), and in the past I've actually tried to mitigate his abrasive behaviour (e.g. [7], see also this)). I'm not upset with Brian; if he's having problems he's having problems, everybody does stupid things sometimes in difficult circumstances, and the style of his comments (which admittedly was always robust and abrasive) has recently changed to such an extent that I frankly wonder whether his account has been hijacked by someone else, as seems to have happened in the past. If anything, I'm a bit more aggrieved at being accused of trolling- that just isn't the case, and it's all a bit disappointing. Badgerpatrol 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional history on Brian's edits at Asperger's syndrome: [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdos (talk • contribs)

Quite frankly, that's the most sensible thing Brian has said recently. Proto///type 10:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not very sensible, because it is not the consensus there. Most of the editors happens to agree with my opinion and not his. The accusations were also totally unfounded. --Rdos 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm in Proto's camp on that one. Sorry, but it's true. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind. As long as these "agreers" doesn't have a Category:Aspergian Wikipedians tag on their user page I will only take it as more neurotypical bullying. --Rdos 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, we'll just self-diagnose like you did and all will be well... Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do that? Try the Aspie-quiz! ;-) --Rdos 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's better to go the whole hog and make up my own test... Just zis Guy you know? 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd better distribute it to some hundred (or preferable thousands) participants and let them indicate if they are diagnosed. Ideally, you should screen all particpants for ASDs with DSM. Then you can take it yourself and compare results. It's not as easy as you claim it is. I've spent many hundred hours on this project. Additionally, many participants in the autistic community and others have helped my by taking time to fill it out. Aspie-quiz is probably one of the largest databases available on autistic traits. --Rdos 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

This user is repeatedly vandalising the George Galloway and Mazher Mahmood articles, adding erroneous information [9] and blanking large amounts of content [10]. This has been going on since early April. The user attacks only these two articles and ever since Mazher Mahmood, an undercover reporter, was exposed trying to bribe a British politician, George Galloway. It is no coincidence that the journalist in question has attempted legal measures to prevent the publication of his photograph - which failed - and now Paul Adams is attempting to remove the journalist's photograph from Wikipedia. He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion, despite appeals on his talk page. On the Mazher Mahmood talk page, the user writes in block capitals, accusing Wikipedia of assisting paedophiles and drug dealers by publishing the photograph. Instead of continually having to revert his vandalism, could the admins just block him?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to vandalise the Mazher Mahmood article, removing sourced material and Mahmood's photograph: [11]. I wonder whether anyone is going to take this seriously and block this vandal, or shall I just keep reverting regardless?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The situation is repeating itself today on the Mazher Mahmood article: [12]. Could it be locked in the unvandalised state (ie the version with Mazher Mahmood's picture, which keeps getting removed)? And is there any possibility of enforcing a block on Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and/or his IP address?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Another act of vandalism [13] by Paul adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). How long are admins going to ignore this? Please block the editor or lock the article on the unvandalised version.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet another act of vandalism by the same user: [14] - are admins going to continue to ignore this?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this poster 100%. This is ridiculous and the vandalism must stop. Stephenjh 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I too agree entirely with the above points. Paul adams is repeatedly blanking sections of the Mazher Mahmood article relating to the subject's exposure by British Member of Parliament George Galloway, falsely claiming the material, which is wholly factual and sourced, to be 'disputed'. He also constantly removes a photograph of Mahmood which has since April been deemed fit for publication after a ruling by the British courts. This user is in flagrant violation of several Wikipedia rules, and IMO should be blocked permanently, and a watch kept for possible use of sockpuppetry. (So far, there have also been a few instances of edits identical to those of the user in question being made from an anonymous IP address). Guy Hatton 17:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:OrphanBot

Please delete this account, the bot spams user pages, doesn't identify correctly tagged images (apparently looking at templates instead of categories), and it doesn't wait to let users fix their errors. The owner is unresponsive to complaints on the bot's talk page. -- Omniplex 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Bots, the procedure proposed on this talk page is apparently wrong. -- Omniplex 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The bot is a disgrace of Wikipedia. For instance, it's not clear why the bot targets the images uploaded to Sabantuy, yet it doesn't care about similarly tagged images from Angela Merkel, Lech Kaczyński and most articles on world leaders. At first I thought it was Carnildo's personal revenge for our dissent in the past, but now I see that he uses the bot to target other wikipedians as well. I would welcome a vote as to whether this bot should be deleted. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried leaving a message at User talk:Carnildo? Martin 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I did see a message demanding certain changes be made to OrphanBot, but given the tone, and that the author ignored the yellow box with the inch-high letters at the top of the talk page, I didn't feel a need to respond. --Carnildo 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot orphans images that have been tagged as having no source or no license information for five days, because these images will be deleted after seven days. If OrphanBot is orphaning your images, it means you need to add a source for the image and correct license information to the image's page, so that Wikipedia can continue to use your images. In doing this, OrphanBot is providing a useful service, and I'll bet if you ask Carnildo nicely, he can help you out with any problems you're having with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with OrphanBot; it contacted me once I forgot to put a license on an image and it was pretty quick too. As the others said, just talk to Carnildo and see if he can help you out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't talk with Carnildo after he permabanned a bunch of precious wikipedians and a couple of admins. After that he promised to leave Wikipedia for good, yet he is back again and targeting me as usual. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point out where I promised to leave Wikipedia? Or any evidence that I'm targeting you for anything? --Carnildo 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been had before here; OrphanBot is most certainly not a spambot or anything similar, and is most definatly performing a useful service. Any issues there may be with it are most likely minor, and do not require admin attention. --InShaneee 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/

In the process of mucking up a request of checkuser rather badly, I inadvertently created the page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/. since this isn't an article page I don't think tagging it CSD is necessarily the right way to handle it, but regardless could someone delete the page since it was an accidental creation that serves no purpose?--Isotope23 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

done. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, "author requests deletion" is CSD G7 and applies to all namespaces, not just articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually didn't know you could CSD/AfD namespaces that were not articles. Learn something new every day.--Isotope23 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, most non-CSD, non-article pages that you want deleted go to Templates for Deletion, Categories for Deletion, Redirects for Deletion, or Miscellany for Deletion. (And I think there's a Stubs for Deletion, too) -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a checkuser clerk, I often find CU pages created with botched names (the subpage system seems to mess things up for some people). I tag them db and list the reason as CSD G6 (general maintanence). Seems to work every time. Thatcher131 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins User:SlimVirgin and User:CommanderKeane in defense of User:IronDuke

User:BlindVenetian (me) was just blocked by User:SlimVirgin for being a sockpuppet (not true, and not listed on the sockpuppets page), and for "harassment of IronDuke", though the only interaction I have had has been trying to remove a personal attack he has made on me -- that I am a sockpuppet. User:CommanderKeane previously told me not to edit pages on which IronDuke had ever edited, again simply because IronDuke doesn't like opposing views. I have promised that if the personal attacks are removed, I will stay away from IronDuke, but I don't see why he isn't being warned for continually reposting personal attacks. -- 88.149.150.76 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your first two edits on Wikipedia were to jump into discussion of this issue [15] [16]. This behavior is transparent sockpuppetry. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Several accounts have been hounding IronDuke for months. We've had enough and you're going to be blocked from now on at the first sign of it, so if you want to edit Wikipedia, stay away from IronDuke. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys are incredible. You say: "stop being an anon, get an account", and when I get an account, you say "transparent sockpuppet". And if people are harassing IronDuke, I can see why, since he seems to call everyone who disagrees with him a sockpuppet or something. What a bunch of head-up-orifice echo-chamber bozos. -- 217.22.230.193 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I guess it's back to being an anon, since you make it untenable to have an account: no rights, no protections. Block away.)

Y'know, I just happened to wander by here, and I have no clue who IronDuke even is, or what drama has transpired here before, but I certainly hope User:SlimVirgin is making completely 100 percent sure that everyone accused of being a sockpuppet is, in fact, a sockpuppet. I just checked User:IronDuke's contributions, and it certainly seems that anyone who disagrees with him indeed gets labeled a "wikistalker" or a "sock", including User:Anomicene, User:BlindVenetian, User:Nyanyoka, and others. I have been told repeatedly in the past by other Admins that we must withhold such bad-faith accusations until absolutely proven by CheckUser, even if it's totally obvious. An ultimatum like "if you want to edit Wikipedia, stay away from IronDuke" sounds very inappropriate and one with a chilling effect on discourse here. wikipediatrix 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wikipediatrix, it's been going on for some time as I said, involves numerous accounts, and a check-user was indeed requested. I've also been in e-mail correspondence with some of those involved in an effort to stop it without using blocks. It didn't work, so here we are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Wikipediatrix. Just a quick clarification. I did not call User:Nyanyoka a sock, and I apologize to that user if it appeared that way. As for the rest, well, as Slim says, there's a long history. As some of it is by necessity off-wiki, things might look more opaque to other editors than would be ideal. IronDuke 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The why don't you put it on-wiki and make it clear? -- User:BlindVenetian 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this edit that reverted User:Nyanyoka's changes, your edit summary was "rv wikistalking sock". But nonetheless, yeah, I fully admit I have no clue what the context of any of this is about - I just wanted to stick my 2 cents and remind folks that puppethunts should be done by the book. wikipediatrix 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this person has ten thousand various accounts or one, and one's stance on this issue, it's painfully apparent that blocking won't dissuade this person. WP:DR is a very good idea. That caveat aside; How does this and this violate any policy we have at all? They are civil, non-confrontational questions. WP:AGF, for the love of god. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add this: I know nothing of IronDuke's history, and don't really care. I have tried to do what I think I've been told: get an account, edit within the rules, etc, and I think I have been treated unfairly. I have been told by CommanderKean that there is no appeals process except to him, and now SlimVirgin swoops in out of (apparently) nowhere, with no history with me, and bans me from Wikipedia. I am NOT out to create a problem on Wikipedia, or with IronDuke as an individual. I just have an issue with this cadre of admins protecting one user, and who isn't satisfied with my voluntary banning from articles, and insists on personal attacks. Perhaps this is the venue to ask: what is the appeals process for this treatment?? (User:BlindVenetian forced to edit as 62.94.178.217 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Well I'll tell you this much, I'm sick of people evading blocks. I don't care whether the block is unfair or not. Evading a block is against policy, and is a basis for a block. I blocked this IP. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BlindVenetian is claiming that he is not a sock or stalker and is requesting to be unblocked on his talk page. I have to go to bed now but i promised I'd bring this to your attention here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This happened to show right at the top of my watchlist and piqued my curiosity, if only because I have recently realized the importance of editing by anons in the light of what might be termed Wikipedia's philosophy. I've briefly reviewed the situation and think there is only one user involved. The pattern looks suspicious but the explanation is plausible. I have not looked into this user's actual edits and can imagine there may be other problems but socket puppetry does not seem to compute. The subsequent block evasion looks like a genuine mistake. I suppose this all looks rather Kafkaesque to this user. I suggest that the BlindVenetian account be unblocked (or that the user sits out a 24-hour block to think this over). The user has already been asked to stay away from the "problem area" for a while. When reinstated, hopefully s/he will get some more experience editing Wikipedia, read up on policy, and generally stay out of trouble from now on. If not, regular procedure will suffice. We can't do much about changing IP numbers but this user who could so easily have become a REAL sock puppet insists on being treated as one person (the exact opposite of sock puppetry) so I believe this would be the end of it. Or am I being naive? AvB ÷ talk 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is complex and involves personal identities that can't be posted. I've posted a query to BlindVenetian. I'm hoping he'll e-mail me so we can work out what's going on, and if we do, he'll be unblocked. I'll post the result here either way, though it may take a day or two. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As SlimVirgin says, there's more to this than meets the eye, and much of it involved revealing personal information. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What a complete smokescreen. Involves personal information - fe. There's either evidence or not. Put it up or let it be. -- 62.94.131.9 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wholescale name changes causing disruption

Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) is using AWB to change as many links to Roman Catholic Church to be [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]] as he can find. I said to him that if he dislikes the way the article is named, he should follow the proper procedure to get it changed. It appears he has tried this and failed, and now is trying to make the name change in articles by stealth. This seems to me to be an obvious rejection of consensus. This user keeps complaining that there is a great anti-Catholic campaign that he is fighting about — it looks like paranoia. Please could other admins keep an eye on this issue. — Gareth Hughes 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100's removal of all messages requesting for him (or her) to slow down with the replacements is not a good sign. At the very least his AWB privileges ought to revoked. joturner 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Could anyone explain to me with could possibly be so problematic with the title Roman Catholic Church? IIRC, it refers to its Roman origins as opposed to other forms of catholic churches. Makes perfect sense to me. Catholic Church would be a title that's not specific enough to the subejct at hand. Am I missing something? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it is felt that the word Roman is meant to diminish the sense of catholicity of the church (the universality of its jurisdiction). Many documents of the Roman Catholic Church do refer to it simply as the Catholic Church. However, there are plenty of occassions where Catholics do add the word Roman. This is especially so in ecumenical contexts. Of course, there are other churches that use Catholic as part of their official title, and many churches that describe themselves as being catholic though without using the word as part of their official titles. The Roman Catholic Church has given us a long history of disambiguation — it is the Catholic Church in union with the see of Rome. — Gareth Hughes 10:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Vaquero100 from the AWB approval list for now. Ral315 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

urgent: I'm being outed - completion of name change

I asked to have my real name nick changed to my present user name, both on en: and de: However, my real name still appears on the history of my en:user page and the en:talk page. Additionally, I had links to my homepage on earlier versions of these pages. Some de:user is outing me at the moment, pointing to these pages. Please delete their history and all archived versions. Ideally, any link between my former and my present user name should be deleted. I refrain from getting a new identity because I'm "Tickle me" in about a dozen wikis: en/de/sp/it/fr/commons/mediawiki, different wikiquotes, wikisources and unrelated armeniapedia. I'd prefer questions by email to avoid outing myself even more when providing information, thx. --tickle me 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with at EN; a DE admin will have to tackle the problem over there. JDoorjam Talk 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian Summarily Closes Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhimmi

I opened an AFD for the Dhimmi article which is hopelessly POV biased. The talk page dialogues reflect a deadlock with all sides totally devout to their POV. On the AFD page, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhimmi I documented the justification of the move, while on talk:dhimmi you can see the details that justify the view that NPOV is unattainable. After roughly 1 hour of opening the AFD, CrazyRussian closed the AFD while votes were coming in. His statement on the top of the page suggests his own judgement that the 'article was not completely POV' was his reason for stopping the process. I would like the process to be opened again, and for appropriate communications to be made to the admin who, in my view, is abusing his powers to push ongoings on Wikipedia. His Excellency... 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If an article is POV, it doesn't need to be deleted, just edited to make it neutral. The article seems to be on an important subject, and notability is the primary criterion on which inclusion in Wikipedia is based. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase 'article is POV' is itself suggestive of a failure to understand what POV is (see WP:POV). If a violation (and this is the most blatant violation I've seen) of NPOV were never to be justifications for an AFD, WP:ADF wouldn't mention NPOV as the first of the standards articles must abide by. Obviously a user is obligated to go through other avenues before filing an AFD. I've tried correcting the Dhimmi article, even bending backward and allowing the flagrant vioation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to go on, albeit with opinions being described as opinions and misleadingly portrayed as undisputed fact (see Talk:Dhimmi). It is clear that there is no possibility of Dhimmi reflecting a NPOV. I've fulfilled my obligation in taking other avenues, and used the last option that's justified under WP:AFD. His Excellency... 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lefty, an additional point: if the article deserves to stay in its present condition ( I think it shouldn't), the AFD process is what should be used to make that judgement. For the process to be ended in 1 hour and 10 minutes because an admin has a strong view on the 'POV' isn't a fair move. If a solid arguement for not having the AFD at all could be made, it should have been voiced by CrazyRussian before killing the vote. The reasons he's given so far aren't cogent ones for the action he'd taken.He voiced his own view of things without giving a credible basis for his view, acting like a judge who has no regard for the jury. Admins were never meant to do this. His Excellency... 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I refer everyone to my closing note, and continue to stand by it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of User:His excellency, there appears to have formed a rapid, unanimous consensus to keep. The article's topic seems appropriate for Wikipedia. A speedy keep seems reasonable. Deletion review can revisit these decisions, but I would strongly discourage User:His excellency from going that route because it would be a waste of his – and everyone else's – time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, AFDs last for 5 days unless I'm mistaken. This AFD lasted for 1 hour and 7 mins due to Crzrussian's interruption. His reason for stopping it seemed to be his own judgement on the matter. He followed up with the following note on my talk page: I'd like to ask you to AfD Judaism because everything within is written from a Jewish POV. Ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC). Meaningless rhetoric like that is difficult to even respond to at first. However, it seems the point he's trying to make is that a POV-bias is to be expected in articles, and that my demand for a Dhimmi article that reflects a NPOV is 'ridiculous'. I would question his credibility as an editor with comments such as those, and more so as an editor with such sweeping powers. His Excellency... 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

With the statement 'As a general rule...' you've hit the nail on the head. In some situations we expedite processes when the outcome is obvious. (See WP:IAR and WP:SNOWBALL.) We're not slaves to process here. The unanimous opposition to the proposed deletion should tell you that deletion isn't going to happen, and you'll need to find another way to resolve any problems you perceive with the article. Neutrality issues related to otherwise-valid article topics are dealt with through editing and not deletion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only was deletion not going to happen, "continu[ing] th[at] discussion would [have] be[en] counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals". - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Or your encyclopedic goals? Explain the "I'd like to ask you to AfD Judaism because everything within is written from a Jewish POV" comment.The votes that came in the first 50 or so minutes were made because of the notability of the topic. "Dhimmi" is a popular word these days. However, notability is not the ONLY criteria that determines whether an article should exist. The AFD should have gone on longer. In time, there would surely been responses from users who'd take the time to read the article and observe the disputes, rather than instinctively respond to the topic name. His Excellency... 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ten, et al., that WP:SNOWBALL and WP:IAR suggest that this close was altogether appropriate (and, to be sure, the nomination stated no legitimate reason for deletion). Even as I think this one fine, though, I wonder whether permitting an AfD to run for a few days in situations where it is obvious that the article will be kept is disruptive or counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals. An AfD such as this might generate much less-than-helpful discussion and consume the time of users who might be otherwise inclined to more encyclopedic purposes, but so too might it bear out the idea that deletion is not the proper means (in general) by which to remedy article bias, in order that User:His excellency and others might appreciate that they ought to collaborate with other editors on the article's talk page to produce an NPOV article. I think the benefits of our keeping the AfD open to be altogether marginal, but I see no concomitant harms. Joe 18:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read the Dhimmi article and its talk page? There is no scope for collaboration. The article is in totality built as an indictment of the Dhimmi practices. His Excellency... 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Joe, how did I become an admin?? This AfD was GUARANTEED to degenerate into name calling and personal attacks. One of the functions of the sysops here is to make peace between users, and preëmptive peace sure beats having to warn and block people. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If indeed the discussion was sure to degenerate as you observe, then the harms of keeping the AfD open would outweigh the benefits, such that closure is appropriate. I intended only to express a view similar to that of Netscott, namely that, where there is no harm to come from running an AfD for a good period of time, the AfD should run, if only because some good often comes. I trust Crz's judgment enough to know that if he says the AfD was going to degenerate, it likely was; my notes was, I suppose, more to the meta-question of snowballing AfDs after just a few hours. Joe 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Funny enough I've seen on a couple occasions a lot of good in terms of improving an article's quality (NPOV, etc.) come from AfDs. Still this particular closure was probably correct. Netscott 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closure. I agree, this was either a bad faith or simply unknowing nomination, and was clearly not going to be deleted (nor did it belong on AfD in the first place). --InShaneee 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the closure was correct, but shouldn't this be on WP:DRV instead? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Closure was appropriate. -- Samir धर्म 20:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is just one more in a series of examples by H.E. that he is taking Wikipedia and its processes in general in bad faith. He has said that "The people on Wikipedia are deaf and blind to reason and logic" [17], that "Wikipedia has become a soapbox for the Islamophobes, with the consent of the larger Wikipedia community" [18], and has personally attacked editors: "Mostly the show's being run by people like Pecher and Timothy Usher who are basically forwarding the orientalist propaganda drivel spewed by the Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'ors."[19]. - Merzbow 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles have been deleted as unfixably PoV; it was decided that it was easier to start over than fix. On the other hand, this wasn't going to be one. Speedy Keep exists to answer obvious landslides. Septentrionalis 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • FYI, H.E. is a sockpuppet/reincarnation of Amibidhrohi with long history of disruption. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Dhimmi, speficically the section "This article has no regard for NPOV", Merzbow offered a maliciously deceptive analysis of my contribution to the article. I responded with a correction of his analysis, and pointed out how his work on the article has been in bad faith. WP:AGF does not require one to assume good faith when there's overwhelmingly reliable evidence to suggest an editor works in bad faith. I have made solid observations on Merzbow's work, as I have of Timothy Usher's works and Pecher. Their work is effectively POV-driven vandalism that is aimed at turning Wikipedia Islam-related articles into indictments against Muslims and Islamic history. If you're bothering to read this, please take the time to look at Dhimmi and its talk page. I've noted on the talk page that out of 114 cited sources, 40 of them are from Bat Ye'or, an author who has been labeled as a polemic and an Islamophobe by many and has been critisized repeatedly for her lack of education in the subject she often talks about. Other sources include Stillman, Bernard Lewis, etc. Virtually all the sources represent a single rigid and critical POV, with no significant representation of any view that does'nt host a condemning tone. The flooding of Islam-related articles with less-than-credible and POV-driven (I'd say hate driven) content is a problem in all the Islam-related articles.

On the AFD, I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks the votes that flooded in within the first 1 hour and 10 minutes can be assumed as representative of what the product would have been in 5 days. Many of those who voted did so instantaneously, without actually looking at the articles or the WP policies that were the basis of the complaint. It's entirely plausible that other voters chose to take the time to research the reasons for what I proposed. It's plausible that they didn't expect the procedure would have been shut down in 1 hour and 10 minutes. The AFD was entirely justified, even if the result wouldn't have been to delete the article. His Excellency... 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

By all means, I encourage everyone to compare my recent edits to article space with H.E.'s, and judge for themselves who is editing in good faith. - Merzbow 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Block attack account User:Brianleiter ?

Brian Leiter is a professor at UT Austin, best known for his rankings of Law Schools. He is also a controversial political blogger. In March, someone created an account named Brianleiter (talk · contribs) and used it to vandalise the Brian Leiter article and its talk page. The account has only 2 edits. I suggest permablocking this account:

• WP:U forbids "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people".
• It is (or was) a vandalism-only account.

(I had forgotten all about this account until I read an old to-do list. There's a good chance the vandal has forgotten the password by now, but I would prefer to play it safe.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked it indef. Sasquatch t|c 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock stuck

I have a user User:Phat Bastard that was indefblocked for his username. Linuxbeak then renamed it to User:PhatB. I have repeatedly undone all the autoblocks, and unblocked his IP, but it still autoblocks every time he tries to edit with the message "your IP has been blocked becuase it was recenlty used by User:PhatB. I suspect this is happening because there is still a block associated with the original username, but Linuxbeak erased that account during the renaming, so I can't get to it to remove the original block. I have asked in #wikimedia-tech and gotten no response. Is there anyone who can help to fix this? The poor user hasn't been able to edit for five days now and I don't know what else to try. Thanks. pschemp | talk 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Create a new user called PhatBastard, one second block him, one second block PhatB? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Was originally User:Phat Bastard, no need to create the user again, I've unblocked it and we'll see if that helps. --pgk^(talk) 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No luck. Anyone else have an idea?pschemp | talk 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Contact a developer? --Carnildo 06:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried that twice on #wikimedia-tech with no response. Hence my posting here. pschemp | talk 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Unblock}} abuse

Ipclog (talk · contribs) is persistently spamming the {{unblock}} template with a summary of SOCKPUPPETS!!!!!!! I recommend his talk page be protected. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted Block Warning by InShaneee

The issue is evident on my talk page. Another user called an AFD I filed 'ridiculous', and sarcastically suggested I should file an AFD against the judaism article because it exibits a pro-Judaism POV. In response, I called his rhetoric 'ridiculous'. InShaneee then placed a 'final warning' for this 'personal attack'. I've posted responses in his talk page which he has not responded to. Though the 'personal attack' I made was preceded by the usage of the same word against me, the other user was not served with a warning, or so much as a comment. I pointed all this out to him, he merely responded saying the warning stays, and that further 'incivility' will result in a block. He did not do the fair thing and offer a comment directed to the other user on his same offense. If you ask me, I think this is harassment. I request that the threat be removed, and that Inshaneee distance himself from this harassment. His Excellency... 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The warning did strike me a bit as "jumping the gun", from what I saw comments were flying back and forth relative to commentary and not actual persons. Netscott 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be taken up on WP:PAIN. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Entertaining entry in my honor there, Tom. I'll discuss that later. This particular issue involves a comment that couldn't have been understood as a personal attack under any circumstance. The justification for the warning was a single comment directed at some other guy's telling me to file an AFD on Judaism. Funny how he saw a personal attack in my usage of the word, but not when used by the person who first used it. His Excellency... 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Either way, filing an AFD on Judaism is pretty much trolling. InShaneee is overreacting a bit (or posted the wrong warning) but don't file frivolous AFDs again. Sasquatch t|c 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i need to read more carefully. Nevermind that... It's not harassment... and IMO the warning is a bit harsh. Sasquatch t|c 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

HE makes a cogent argument IMO, and the (few) people who have responded here seem to pretty much agree. Note also this post, where the victim of the supposed PA states that he disagrees with the warnings and thinks neither of the disputants has been incivil. I'm removing the warnings per HE's request. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Inappropriate username

Can someone take a look at Taigkiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? (Taig is an ethnic slur for Catholic, so the name means "killer of Catholics"). From their three contributions (including posting loyalist paramilitary slogans on another user's talk page [20]) I don't think they're here to make any sort of useful contribution. Demiurge 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture beat me to it. Endorse indef. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I thought I'd done it. Never mind. Well spotted. Proto///type 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wheel War over DRV result

DRV result [21] and the wheel war [22]. Can we stop this bickering? Hort Graz 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the applicable policy WP:ASR. --Cyde↔Weys 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects should be deleted. If they aren't deleted then somebody has become very confused about the concept and goals of the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the people. The number of readers vastly outweighs the number of editors. Mackensen (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, excuse the repetition) The topic is not notable, a self reference, and a cross namespace redirect. The page shouldn't exist. Wikipedia is created with the reader in mind, not the editor, so this page really shouldn't exist. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is addressing the wheel war. Are you saying it is ok to wheel war as long as you are right? Hort Graz 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring is wrong. There is no deadline to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am saying the page shouldn't be recreated. There should be no wheel war. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying, if you are right your action is not wheel warring, and if you are wrong your action is wheel warring? Regardless of who is right this time, is this the general definition of wheel warring we want? Hort Graz 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ha, wow. That's pretty ridiculous. (And don't forget this related wheel war.) I think it's more like, no one's going to jump in and stop them because the entire thing is too silly. Cyde, or anyone else with a bot-minion, can Cydebot change all the old [[Be bold]]s and [[Be Bold]]s to [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be bold]]? Regardless of the result of this argument, that'd reduce collateral damage in the interim. JDoorjam Talk 20:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Various AWB bots have already done/are working on this. --mboverload@ 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's already been done. Any collateral damage that might exist is due to talk page archives (some of them protected) and new uses of a deprecated redirect, i.e. trivial. — Jun. 27, '06 [20:38] <freak|talk>

This is no more silly than the pedophile wheel war. Should we temporarly deadmin Cyde, Xolox, Kelly Martin, and Shanel so they stop wheel warring? Hort Graz 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't wheel war. Nothing you have linked to provides any evidence of me having wheel warred. --Cyde↔Weys 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor I. I merely deleted two blatantly stupid and out-of-policy cross-namespace redirects. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I already did run Cydebot on those two redirects ... they used to have 3,000 pages linking to them, now it's just a couple dozen that the bot can't fix because they're either protected or malformatted. --Cyde↔Weys 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that your bot uses your account for protected pages. --mboverload@ 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The pyWikipediaBot Cydebot has that functionality, the AWB Cydebot doesn't. I used AWB to make these replacements. --Cyde↔Weys 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a very limited number of cross-namespace redirects and we should try to delete new ones quickly when they show up. But there was some historical justification for keeping this one and since that seems to have been the will of the DRV I don't see why admins should feel the need to override that - even though they've got a cool button and an opinion. It's a redirect, it's not worth it. Haukur 20:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Temporary desysop? No way. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, this is the central place for the discussion. Well, I just want to say that I support Xoloz's actions. He closed a DRV, and the people who voted in the DRV did so while considering WP:ASR. I disagree strongly with people reverting him and sending him outraged messages because he is simply closing a DRV within the DRV process. That being said, I made my opinions in DRV, and I simply don't care where Be bold or Be Bold redirects to as much as the edit warriors involved apparently do, so enjoy your edit war, but please don't go flaming an admin who is simply closing a DRV according to consensus. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

DRV isn't the end-all be-all. Lots of people have opinions, and those opinions don't just disappear because they happened to miss a limited time frame window on a DRV discussion. --Cyde↔Weys 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's message in February didn't sink in, you guys are still wheel warring first, talking later. Hort Graz 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Without any direct comment on this "wheel war", we should never attack the person who carries out the thankless job of closing deletion debates. That is my opinion. Yamaguchi先生 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Even when they fail to exercise any degree of sense when doing so? Xoloz's decision was without any basis in policy, sense, or reason. We don't let robots be admins, and if Xoloz is going to pretend to be a policybot, he should be desysoped forthwith. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty close to a personal attack on Xoloz. Use more temperate speech, please; if your point has merit, all you're doing is weakening it by acting this way. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a direct attack on Xoloz's competency as an admin. I think Xoloz is a consistently poor admin and feel that we'd be better off if he weren't one. I will no doubt be accused of personal attacks for having the temerity to express that opinion, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying "Admin X made a bad/stupid decision" and "Admin X has no sense or reason". The first addresses an action, while the second addresses the individual who performed the action, and as such is a personal attack. As I stated earlier, there are ways to make the point you're trying to make without speaking the way that you are, and your language here is not conducive to a reasoned discussion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And, if you will actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I said that Xoloz's decision lacked basis in policy, sense or reason. Thank you for demonstrating that I have not, in fact, engaged in any personal attacks. Quite clearly, my comments were in the form of "Admin X made a bad/stupid decision". Will you now withdraw the accusation? And perhaps stop trolling in this forum? It's really irritating. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you take another look at what I wrote, you'll see that I said you were "pretty close to" a personal attack on Xoloz, not that you'd committed one. You could've said what you wanted to say in a much less confrontational manner, if you'd been so inclined, and with people's feelings running hot on this already there's no point in ratcheting up the tension (my opinions about your "trolling" remark are of a similar nature). If you feel that Xoloz is a "robot" who "shoud be desysoped", he's an "admin open to recall". Find five other people and drop him a note on his talk page, instead of muddying things up here, where the discussion should be focused on the redirect (or lack thereof). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As one who has done plenty, there's also no excuse for closing a deletion debate in direct contravention of policy, accepted practice, and common sense. That is, the real problem here, as Kelly said, is that DRV is broken. The decision that Xoloz made was completely incorrect. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was it wrong? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 20:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, because it was a cross-namespace redirect. Those are bad and shouldn't exist. I imagine there's some policy somewhere backing up my blatant assertion of common sense. Second of all, see Freak's comment below. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackensen (talk • contribs) .

Believing DRV is broken is not an excuse to wheel war. Or do you think otherwise? Is being right and forcing what you think is right more important than working with each other? Hort Graz 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Being unable to excercise judgement is no criteria for being an administrator either. Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that WP:RFD produced a unanimous decision to redirect these to the article Boldness. — Jun. 27, '06 [20:40] <freak|talk>

And DRV produced a different decision. Like I said, I could care less what happens to those two bloody articles, but I support Xoloz in his action of closing the DRV. Now go ahead and redirect those two articles wherever the hell you want it to go, but please don't go flaming Xoloz for closing the DRV. If DRV is broken, then fix it, but don't kill the worker who is working with the broken machine. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I will kill the worker because it's his fault it's broken. Administrators are expected to exercise their own good judgement. Blindly following the lead of a broken process demonstrates a lack of judgement that is palpable, even gross. Xoloz should have closed this in the other direction, based on the RfD and common sense. Mackensen (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen means that metaphorically, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IT'S A TRICK! RUN FOR IT, XOLOZ!!! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen is right, our policies are created with an assumption of a basic level of sanity and intelligence. If our policies fail when someone is stupid, we should change the user not the policy. --Gmaxwell

Are you suggesting that I'm stupid? Just wondering... Xoloz 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete it then? — Jun. 27, '06 [20:47] <freak|talk>

(edit conflict) Do whatever you want with it. I'm not going to lose sleep over what happens (but I am not going to heartily endorse this event or product). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we do end up doing with it, we must follow policy and prevent the recreation of the cross-namespace redirect. A few people on DRV can't override policy. --Cyde↔Weys 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't claim administrators aren't responsible for performing actions in violation of policy, just because DRV supports them. -- SCZenz 20:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question though, what to do when two policies conflict with each other, and the community disagrees on what should be "common sense". Yamaguchi先生 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the correct answer to that is, we already know what some admin's answer is: WHEEL WAR! Hort Graz 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Let's put the buzzwords down and back away from them and have a serious discussion. What we've got here is a classic conflict between process and policy. That is, an approved process came up with a result which violated policy. In that case, the best thing is for the closing administrator to exercise good judgement (as I said above), and close the discussion in favor of policy over process. It's that simple. Mackensen (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You still put all the focus on one admin making a correct decision abour closing, but not all admins will make correct decisions, so the horse is out of the barn. You don't seem to care about the decisions made by the other admins, the ones who decided to start a wheel war instead of talking things out. Why no serious discussion from you about wheel warring? Hort Graz 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is insane. It is not possible to achieve real consensus on DRV in many cases, unlike *FD, because DRV is only of interest to deletion/inclusion partisans and DRV process cogs. At least the *FD processes will attract the attention of interested parties. I would never have supported undeleting those redirects, had I been aware of the discussion... and I have no doubt that many other users would hold the same position. It was no appropriate to undelete these reader confusing self references (BOLD->WP:BOLD? Come on! the sort of person who would type with their caps on is in the least need of the confusion of being redirected into sausage making space). That the people arguing against the redeltion are leaning on an expectation of people to blindly follow DRV policy even when it violates our written guidelines and longstanding community behavior ... well, that is just shameful. --Gmaxwell 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- this is rather loony. I closed a DRV. In the DRV, some people were hard-line on ASR, some said we should override it per IAR. The latter were greater in number, and -- in my view -- made more sense as well. For my reason extended, see my conversation with Cyde at his talk page. I take some exception to Mackensen characterizing my judgment as grossly in error. I did not count numbers -- I weighed two conflicting interpretations of policy and went with that one most compelling in this instance. This is what discretion means. Apparently, some folks do expect robotic admins, and God forbid the robots weigh arguments for themselves. Xoloz 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute... A thought DRV reviewed process. You're saying you supported new arguments to overturn a valid MfD. What's going on? -- SCZenz 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As Mr. Sidaway always reminds us, DRV is open to new evidence, so your characterization of it as a process-review only forum is incorrect. The argument was over whether the RfD failed to consider user-friendliness and the advice of WP:IAR -- that is within the purview of DRV. Xoloz 21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not new evidence. WP:IAR is not intended to enhance "user-friendliness" in the face of polices that are enacted for a specific, highly-relevant reason. -- SCZenz 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By the same logic, you could argue that WP:DRV could override the Keep-vote of an AfD because it "failed to consider" that the subject was non-notable. DRV is not a supreme court, and it is not a higher expression of community consensus than either policy or RfD, let alone both together. -- SCZenz 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when did style guidelines--such as WP:ASR--get upgraded to the status of policy? Are we going to start deleting pages that do not comply with the manual of style? Oh wait, that would be absurd... just like this wheel war. Even if you say that ASR is policy is is pretty light in the pants They should at least be acknowledged or marked as self-references but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia. What exactly is the harm done with this redirect, so long as it is tagged as a self reference? On a somewhat related note, {{deletedpage}} is not tagged as metadata either, and plenty of mirrors blissfully display it. The claim that all cross-namespace redirects are deleted being "common practice" is partially rebutted by RFD's precedents. Kotepho 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirects from article space were all deleted or modified, I see from that page. Those are the ones that interfere with the encyclopedia and are self-references. -- SCZenz 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

However, after taking a bit more time to look over ASR, I see (to my surprise) that it's not as insistent about cross-namespace redirects as I had thought. Well this doesn't change my opinion, I think I've been overly-agressive in my comments, and I apologize. -- SCZenz 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a different definition of "all"? Wikipedia is not paper has not be deleted for modified (yet), and the ones that are red now were in the keep pile because they survived an RFD. I am also not sure how Be Bold and Be bold are getting in the way of encyclopedic content, at least more than deletedpage does. Kotepho 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed that one because it started with "Wikipedia" so I thought it was a redirect out of the WP space. -- SCZenz 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know why self-references are bad, usually. All the good examples are at WP:ASR. But does anyone care to explain to me what horrible thing a redirect such as be bold does to this ecyclopedia? I personally don't really care whether this is a redirect or not, but I also don't see any real harm in it being a redirect. I'm really just curious, maybe I missed something. Currently, be bold has {{deleted page}} on it, which is one huge self-reference, by the way. Kinda ironic. Oh, and I just noticed Original research.. --Conti|✉ 21:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a big list at User:Invitatious/cnr. Kotepho 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) I agree that cross-namespace redirects and other self-references should be avoided, but I don't see the harm in have a very limited number of them when the is no chance of them being mistaken for an article, especially when they have been around for a long time and deletion will break a lot of old links (I don't know if this is the case for this particular redirect). But, if they are to be deleted entirely, so be it. However, the absolute prohibition should be noted (an absolute prohibition is not given on (WP:ASR]], "...but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia") and perhaps even made a speedy delete criterion. -- Kjkolb 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen has just given me some kind of boner. If more admins closed AfD discussions in favor of policy over process, we might actually see all those garbage articles that fail WP:NOT, WP:V, and/or WP:NOR actually be deleted, instead of an endless sucession of staid vote-counting 'no consensus'es. Kudos to that Mackensen dude, he knows what he's talking about. Oh yeah, WP:ASR only being a guideline doesn't mean it's a poor idea that we should only adopt when it suits. Proto///type 12:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you're definitely not a speaker of American English, right? Because I am & that's not the meaning of "boner" that first comes to my mind. (No, I'm not trying to start a language war, just trying to gently warn Proto over the unintended meanings words can sometimes have.) -- llywrch 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, he is a speaker of American English, and he meant it exactly as he said it. I'm not even aware of any other definition of "boner" than erection. --Cyde↔Weys 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

boner. ~ PseudoSudo 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing nobody has pointed out yet: Xoloz is a relatively new admin, as of May 17. And he had a lot of support, making it to WP:100. However, being a new admin, he has the potential to make mistakes. Just as we have a WP:BITE policy to avoid biting newcomers, we should apply the same logic to new admins. In this case, some reasoned education would have been more appropriate than remarks like "bad", "stupid", "no basis in sense", and so on. --Elkman 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing out of process with Xoloz's decision. Cross-namespace redirects are not against current official policy. There is in fact quite a community split over the issue at the moment; read through WP:RFD right at this very moment and that will become obvious. With that in mind I completely fail to understand Kelly Martin / Mackensen's arguments that Xoloz made an incorrect action. ~ PseudoSudo 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there really isn't a controversy over this one, and saying there is is nothing more than trying to manufacture one. It's long-standing practice that self-references are not allowed in Wikipedia because we are writing GFDL content for a free encyclopedia that is used in many places; we aren't writing merely to perpetuate Wikipedia. As a direct consequence of this we don't use self-references in the encyclopedic content. If you look at Wikipedia it uses external links to refer to itself, because we are not writing Wikipedia articles, we are writing encyclopedia articles, and any sort of cross-namespace internal link is broken on every other site that hosts our content. Not having cross-namespace links (or, even worse, redirects), is a simple no-brainer. There's no real controversy because anyone arguing for them is basically arguing against the fundamental goals of the project. If you want to go work on an encyclopedia whose goal is to perpetuate itself you can go do it ... you always have the right to fork. But Wikipedia isn't the place for that. --Cyde↔Weys 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, there is very clearly a controversy over this matter. I count many (Art LaPella, Chicheley, Jgp, Kusma, Shreshth91, Kjkolb, AndyJones, KeithTyler, 23skidoo, Osomec) editors voting keep in RFDs of cross-namespace redirects in just the past five days, not even attempting to take into account this highly-publicized DRV that ended in a keep. To deny this fact is to perpetuate exactly the type of behavior we are trying to condone in this thread. The point of my post, aside from vanquishing the ridiculous claims that Xoloz was at fault in any sense, was to re-iterate what I've said previously in these discussions: policy on cross-namespace redirects needs to be formed, else the same two-point debates on RFD that occur on a daily basis will not ever end. ~ PseudoSudo 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

None of those people you listed are in charge of setting policy though. In a project the size of Wikipedia there's always going to be dissenters. That doesn't mean they get any say in changing our fundamental goals away from what they currently are, though. --Cyde↔Weys 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems a bit misleading, as the cleanup-style templates are self references, for example. (of course, that can get interesting as well - see Template:POV-tag) RN 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those are marked in selfref categories so they can be excised before going up on mirrors. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to complain that Wikipedia mirrors now will have the deleted-page template with half a dozen cross-namespace-links instead of a cross-namespace-redirect, which doesn't look like any improvement at all. But now I see this instead. This looks quite acceptable to me, although the link to WP:BB should be an exernal link, just to be extra correct. --Conti|✉ 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User: AFD Waiting to Happen

AFD Waiting to Happen (talk · contribs) is a recent member whose name may be inappropriate. Also, the user has created a TON of new pages. Based on the user name, I would like nothing more than to assume good faith, but ... well ...Typed too fast, since doing a bit of research merits the ones I checked were real. I apologize -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for username. --Cyde↔Weys 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we normally have articles for minor league players? I thought we didn't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor League players are a hot topic in AFD recently, easily WP:POINT creations. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some we do, and some we don't. Generally, a player doesn't get an article just for being a minor-league ballplayer, but there are a lot of minor-league players who qualify under other grounds: notable amateur achievements, membership on a national team/international competion, presence on a major-league 40-man roster, etc. There's currently some discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), which suggests extending it to a few other categories (players in the All-Star Futures Game, minor-league All-Stars, etc.), and if you have an opinion on the matter we could use some more feedback. As things currently stand, a lot of these player stubs seem to be the sort that'd be deleted with the current precedents in mind. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Being on a minor league team simply can't be sufficient for a biography. First, the athlete's career isn't established yet. Second, the numbers are staggering. Third, the athlete doesn't rise to fame/notability beyond the very local area or the very devoted interest group of scouts. I'd want to know that the other notability is pretty danged huge. Otherwise, the person would just be a name on a "List of players in the all star minor league game" or something like that. A break out article suggests a biography rather than a fact, IMO. Geogre 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that some of these can be deleted as reposts of deleted content: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that normally minor league sports players aren't really notable enough to get their own articles unless there's some other fact that makes them notable. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible return under AFD WtH (talk · contribs), fyi. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In case these keep getting re-posted, I'd advise against a {{deletedpage}} on one of the articles, specifically the one for Stephen Head. He's by far the best prospect in that batch, and you could make a case for keeping a good article on him, if there were one. He was a three-time All American in college, conference player of the year for the SEC in 2004, part of the 2003 US National Team that competed in the Pan American Games, one of five finalists for the Golden Spikes Award (the baseball equivalent of the Heisman Trophy), etc. The one-liner that got speedied is no loss, but I'd hate to see this mess end up blocking the one guy who really does deserve an article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When he comes up to the Majors, then you or somebody else can go to DRV and request that it be unprotected. Until then, let's just keep things simple. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. With any luck, it'll all be a moot point anyway. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would hope, though, that this isn't a general "minor leaguers don't get their own pages" suggestion. Certainly, clubs regularly engage in the hyperbolic "he's the next (insert superstar's name here)" but, if the article satisfies WP:N, I would hope it would stay. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stalker/Outer/Vandal

I have a "new" Wikipedia editor, [Pete Peters] vandalizing my talk pages and edits. Arthur Ellis 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I warned him. He should stop adding suspected sock tags after RFCU was declined. Please post back on this page if he continues with unwanted edits. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A question: Pete Peeters, is a famous NHL goalie; is Pete Peters (talk · contribs) username in question? -- Samir धर्म 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could be coincidental, being a common name, but combined with his behavior, I'd suggest going ahead and blocking. — Jun. 27, '06 [23:11] <freak|talk>

Working with this one... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Move war

User:Lysy started a move request at Act of Kreva on 26 June, and just before submitting it, he moved the page to the location Union of Krewo where he, concluded from his vote, supports it to be. This no doubt was because he wanted to put the burden for getting a clear majority to burden his opponents, and not his own camp. This is why we generally frown upon and regard bad form, if a requester of move makes a move to his location just before the request. However, now the situation has escalated: some other users moved the page back where it was before Lysy's combined "move and request" antics. And Lysy has now at least three (Four?) times countered it. His last move was just a bit over 24 hours had passed from the previous. So his conduct seems to be circumventing barely the restrictions upon 3RR. We call it gaming the system. Situation seems to be that two or three others counter his moves, and on his side, he acts alone. Clear move war, and clear case where Lysy dos not want to respect a majority, but regards himself alone having the right to act. Of course he may be able to fill pages and pages with explanations why he is materially right and how everyone other is wrong and that all previous doings are in his opinion of course procedurally wrong. But that all should not matter much, in face of clear move warring when his own move request is ongoing. Lysy had been requested not to move the page to the location he votes for. So, warnings were sufficiently given, I think. Requests and warnings do not hnder his disruptive warring. I hope you mandate a longer block upon Lysy. Marrtel 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr sean chronic RSX (talk · contribs)

He's leaving a semi-legal threat at Talk:Canadian Federation of Students saying he's afraid Wikipedia will get sued over content in the main article. Ardenn 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

racist attack

Hi. Could an admin please have a look at this edit and editor and take whatever action is appropriate? Thanks. IronDuke 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin myself, but I would recommend a block, as he's a repeat vandal. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. -- Kjkolb 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. IronDuke 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark

I have blocked Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for violating the terms of his temporary injunction while his ArbCom case was still proceeding. The terms of the injunction were that he could only edit his user talk page and the arbitration case pages. I caught him editing a variety of articles as well as his user page. --Cyde↔Weys 02:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, it was RC patrol. Perhaps he should recieve a strong slap on the wrist, but it's no POV pushing of sorts. People have done worse. I was curious about it, but I figured someone on ArbCom had given him the go-ahead via email or something.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. It doesn't get any clearer than "any Wikipedia pages". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not our job to interpret ArbCom's sanctions. Not that there was anything ambiguous whatsoever about those sanctions, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The link provided shows an injunction that has failed to achieve majority, and the actual Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Blu_Aardvark page says "Temporary injunction (none)." Is there something I am missing? - brenneman ^{L} 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't on the main case page, but he should have been aware of it if he had read his unblock message: [23]. I'm not that familar with arbcom policy, but it appears that it should only be a 24 hour block: Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Injunctions, not indefinate. Not that it matters much, considering he claims he'll leave wikipedia if he gets a ban out of arbcom which is currently one close vote away from banning him for a year anyways. Kevin_b_er 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And the log also says "(Unblocked to participate in arbitration)" so, yeah, the message was there. Taking into account (+) that it was new page patrol, (--) that he should have known better, (+) that there was no term specified, I lean towards reducing to 24 hours for forms' sake. - brenneman ^{L} 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He said that he knew about it and ignored it. I see no reason why he should be unblocked at all. Let him e-mail arbitrators if he needs to weigh in on his case- we've done this before. Ral315 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, here, both in content and in edit summary, invoking WP:IAR. Problem is, there is a massive difference between ignoring the rules and ignoring specific instructions by ArbCom. I fully agree that he should now deal only with them for any further action. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it shouldn't just be a 24 hour block. The penalty for violating an ArbCom injunction is "stay blocked until an ArbCom member deals with it", not "stay blocked, but just for 24 hours". Hence the indefinite. In all likelihood Blu Aardvark is going to stay blocked for at least a year. --Cyde↔Weys 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he should be re-blocked, what I meant was that he could have done something much more malicious. The ikiroid 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Provocative epitaph to Blu Aardvark as Wikipedian

Blu Aardvark started off, as many of us do, as a good earnest newbie Wikipedian. He did a few questionable things and got a taste of some of the Wikipedia community's officiousness. He did not handle it well and flamed out in a puerile fashion. He then co-founded a criticism site, quite likely with good intentions, but just stood by when it got out of hand and other members launched some vicious attacks. He had a change of heart and tried to come back to Wikipedia, but the community was unforgiving and reacted with anger. This time he left with class and maturity, trapping us in our own officiousness in a nice coup de grace. It sounds as if he has matured and learned from the debacle; let us hope that, in time, the Wikipedia community will as well. Martinp 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, his final actions were nothing more than an attempt to sow confusion by playing the "Ohh look at me, I'm making good edits but you're blocking me anyway!" card. That is to say, he wasn't editing because he truly cared about making the encyclopedia better, only to try to make us look bad. --Cyde↔Weys 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We really should avoid talking about other user's motivations, since it is complete supposition. - brenneman ^{L} 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Charter of Rights content removal

This was a really tough call. I blocked User:70.48.3.174 for repeatedly removing content from Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms- an important note in an FA- even after it was referenced, after warnings and after one last attempt at discussion. His last few edit summaries included interesting anti-Wikipedia sentiment and personal attacks as well. Please review. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the anti-Wikipedia sentiment and personal attacks aren't interesting at all. Good block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL vandal

Some vandal has been repeatedly vandalizing carrot from AOL (using multiple IP addresses). I don't know exactly what to do about it (they have persisted despite multiple warnings, and from the edit descriptions it is obviously vandalism and not some newbie's tests). Mo-Al 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is s-protected. (So now I suppose the AOLuser will simply indulge his squalid little masturbation fantasies elsewhere.) Hoary 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they've started on my talk page. (see User_talk:Mo-Al#Quick question!) Mo-Al 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page can be s-protected too. Do you want that? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Not neccessarily. Can I post a warning on their talk page for that? Mo-Al 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the vandal edits (and the associated reverts) from the history of Carrot, since some of the vandalism was in the edit summaries (which were also quite long and typed in ALL CAPS). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to again. Looks like there's some more vandalism. Mo-Al 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Fixed it again. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

I strongly suggest that this IP be banned. They have recieved multiple final warnings, and recently vandalized Today's Featured Article by blanking it and replacing it with hundreds of lines of nonsense. False Prophet 15:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

External Link Spam

I am requesting that the external link [24] be blacklisted (or whatever it takes to block the whole domain) because it is being spammed on a number of cases by a number of IPs and forums are not appropriate external links according to manual of style. This is clearly just a case of trying to advertise. I am including some links to the IPs that are spamming them and every single edit done by these users (check user contribs) is to spam these forums. 200.55.64.219 (talk · contribs · logs), 200.55.75.96 (talk · contribs · logs), 200.55.87.45 (talk · contribs · logs), Carlatf (talk · contribs · logs)SirGrant 04:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Conduct Unbecoming an Administrator by User:Seabhcan

Moved to User talk:Seabhcan - brenneman ^{L} 05:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider this ANI notice as a bad faith personal attack by those same Admin-trolls that I had been complaining about. Something needs to be done about this abusive and bullying cabal - Mongo, Jersey Devil and others. I am considering quitting Wikipedia altogether if their disgraceful behaviour continues uncorrected. A wikipedia which allows this to continue does not deserve my time. Seabhcán 09:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil is not an admin...I am not a troll.--MONGO 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of article maggot

What looks like one user (possibly two) has been repeatedly adding things like "Mysogynists" to the article maggot, using multiple IP addresses and one account (user:Sweet Pinkette). Mo-Al 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's somewhat long term addition of nonsense. I'm not sure it's vandalism, per se, but it's repeatedly adding unsupported private usage. (Misogynists do not turn into houseflies.) Geogre 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the page now, and no wonder the user keeps inserting it: the article is a wiki-mess! People are just adding every "maggot-" to it. Our dab pages tend to be undisciplined, but this one's just a dump. We really ought to disambiguate things known only as "maggot." Everything else is "me too." Further, the page hasn't a single reason for anything lexical, and yet a lot of lexical stuff is on there. Blug. Someone needs to come down like Thor from the mountain, kick out most of the stuff (not just the misogyny ref), put some hierarchy on the disambiguations, and then, on the talk page, explain to people what should and should not be disambiguated. Aren't there dab-warriors out there? (I ask honestly. There were some people who were attacking dabs rigorously and trying to make them have some sense.) I hope one sees this need and steps in. I just tried to organize Inspiration so that it moves logically from concept to specific item to artwork. Geogre 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir editing despite indefinite block

Although Israel Shamir was placed on an indefinite block on 18 June 2006, by 28 June he was again editing and reverting the article "Israel Shamir".RolandR 09:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked him. His block log does not show that he was unblocked so I don't know what happened there. Homey 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Impersonating sockpuppet: User:NikosPolitis alias User:Erdogan Cevher

(Sorry, moving this down here because it escaped notice yesterday.) Can somebody please block NikosPolitis (talk · contribs)? He is an obvious sockpuppet of Erdogan Cevher (talk · contribs), continuing a campaign of nationalist POV soapboxing over Cyprus on Talk:List of unrecognized countries. His new username is an attempt at impersonating Politis (talk · contribs) and/or NikoSilver (talk · contribs), both Greek contributors who have been opposing him on the same page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be filed at WP:RFCU. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Only I thought CU was not for the very obvious cases. This one is, if you look at the edit patterns. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing other editors comments in AfD

I have no idea of how many others he has edited, but this editor is editing my reason for deletion here: Please contact me on my talk page. Or in bootcamp.

Diffs editing my words:

• Kenneth Wapnick

• William Thetford

• Helen Schucman

• Foundation for Inner Peace

• Foundation for A Course in Miracles

• Community Miracles Center

Poster Boarding only:

• Attitudinal healing

• ACIM church movement

Ste4k 12:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that would fall under behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia (also see context "swizzling") but also likely Wikipedia:Harassment since it appears that you have been specifically targeted. If you haven't been specifically targeted then likely a warning is in order... but if you have then a block seems appropriate. You might want to notify that editor of your post here. Netscott 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay I am putting the list I found above. I would appreciate not speaking to him at all. He has been harrassing me about his articles over a few days now. I am too new to know if this should be handled at a higher level, or what level that would be. What I find detestable about what he is doing in articles of deleteion is: "How can anyone trust the words written on the page of those dicsussions now??" Ste4k 12:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He has made comments that are gender related, but that is probably because he believes I am male. I don't believe that he is doing anything more than taking an impersonal matter personally himself, getting excited about it, etc., and misbehaving as a result. That's just my guess. He believes that I am acting in bad faith, I think he actually believes that. Ste4k 12:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about your commentary here but if you yourself have been systematically targetting his articles (I'm guessing articles he created?) for deletion then your own behavior may fall under Wikipedia:Harassment. This of course wouldn't be the case if you were to have found an article created by him/her that was nonsense and from following their contributions history found other corresponding nonsense articles that merited deletion. This'll have to be properly reviewed to understand the full story of what has been occurring here. Netscott 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking closely at the entire category. It appears to be recursively linked and resting on very weak sources. There is a difference between a category and personal attack. I do not know if he created all of those articles, but I do know that he should be much less abusive. Ste4k 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other users of targetting other users articles. No one owns articles on wikipedia. Kindly assume good faith, until and unless you have reason to believe that the user is really harrassing someone. Most of the facts presented here are vague and clarity is required so that some valid action can be taken. The user here (Ste4k) needs to present all the diffs. Thank you. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And also where the same user has targetted valid articles made by the other user. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick, get your story straight, I didn't accuse anyone. I merely mentioned the possibility. There's a very significant difference. Netscott 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect to you; I suppose the possibilities that a user might have targetted should be substantiated with diffs. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made my (unsure) commentary based entirely upon Ste4k's response to my first post but in particular this statement, "That's just my guess. He believes that I am acting in bad faith, I think he actually believes that.". If an editor was going around submitting article after article for deletion that I created you can be sure that I'd be thinking that person was acting in bad faith, particularly if the articles weren't examples of nonsense. Netscott 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Warned Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) re editorialising of AfD debates. If this is a crusade by Ste4k then it's one I can get behind, since this group of articles is a walled garden concerning an apparent cult. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) has now decided to make personal attacks against me by putting my name in topic headers and accusing me of a crusade against his ideals. Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles this has been going on long enough and I will put a notice on the adjacent Admin board. Thanks. Ste4k 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Threats by anon. user

I'll try my best to summarize. I am a registered user since mid-April. I have worked exclusively on Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) and the related article Steam (band). The former article was recently deleted because of lack of evidence to support this musicians claim to fame "Na Na Hey Hey". (In fact, newspaper articles and books indicate that the lead singer was another musician.) During discussion and mediation, the editor(s) who supported the Greg Bravo article ended up being blocked for vandalism.

Other editors have popped up to change the related Steam (band) article. I had revised this article to clarify who the lead singer was (I did this in response to the Bravo hoax). I added the newspaper and book sources. I am now being harrassed by an unregistered user on my talk page. There are veiled threats of legal action because he claims that I am cyberstalking. Another statement was that I would be easy to find. --Fortheloveofhampsters 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, unless you have given out personal information like your real name, address, etc, you are definitely not "easy to find." Unfortunately, threats coming from AOL accounts are hard to deal with because AOL IP addresses can not be blocked for any significant length of time. I'm afraid you'll just have to ignore it. If registered users make threats, or act in a way that ties them to inappropriate activity by anons or previously blocked users, you can report it here and they can be blocked if needed. It's hard to do anything helpful with AOL anons. Thatcher131 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What a lovely welcome for a new user. :-( Starting with a fake indefblocked template from an AOL IP we have seen before, the Edit Summary Vandal (this is one of many edits to the Main page article yesterday) as the very first edit on Hampster's talkpage, and followed up by a legal threatster, also from AOL. :-( And still no wikimedia software solution to the virtual unblockability of AOL vandals has been found. Or prioritized? Bishonen | talk 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC). P. S. I have done the obvious: semiprotected the user talkpage so new and unregistered users can't edit it. All established users still can. Fortheloveofhampsters, please let me know if you'd rather have your page unprotected, and feel free to remove harassing messages from it. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
    • Look at the bright side. As soon as 550 is accomplished and implemented, we can just block the whole range and force registration. Until then, oh well. Use regex and blacklist the whole lot in VandalProof, VandalFighter, Pgkbot... Etal. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Constant picture adding

MaindrianPace (talk · contribs) has constantly added pictures to the Gone in 60 Seconds article. He's uploaded about 25 unsourced images and keeps inserting them into the article, causing the page to become cluttered and out of format (see here). Repeated messages on his talk page have gone unanswered. I'm not sure how to proceed, but MaindrianPace was previously blocked for copyright violations on the Serpico page. PBP 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. As far as I can see the only way to proceed is to get tough. He has ignpored numerous warnings about image tagging - I say we simply delete any image he uploads without a tag until he gets the message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Portugal

Jose Manuel (talk · contribs) keeps changing the infobox in the Portugal article, introducing 1910 as the date of formation of the country. That makes just no sense. I won't revert him anymore, he is a newcomer, I don't want to bite him, however, Portugal is an independent country since 1143, he is ignoring that, 1910 is the date of the Republican revolution. He also introduced some links of minor importance for the article in the external links section. What should I do? Afonso Silva 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Solved. Afonso Silva 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

I've been trying for some while to keep a lid on a series of articles about personal rapid transit (PRT), where there is a tendency among the small community of editors to let their enthusiasm for the technology overcome what I view as the appropriate scpeticism of a technology which, after forty years, has zero installed base.

As part of this a cartoonist called Ken Avidor made some edits a while back as User:Avidor in respect of the camnpaign for PRT in his town. There was apparently some good old fashioned pork-barrel politics there. Thisgs are often heated but usually civil, however at least one editor has it in for Avidor, representing him as an extremist (in the way that creators of huge articles[25] on non-existent products are not). Apparently because I am sceptical of the claims of PRT as a widespread urban mode despite its approval byu the German government (which nonetheless never actually built it), I am a POV-pusher like Avidor. Ah well, I'm an evil rouge admin and I can take it.

However, there are a number of things in Talk:Personal rapid transit, Talk:UniModal and Talk:ULTra (PRT) which might be construed as attacks on User:Avidor, who is no longer active here. He has posted to my Talk page asking if this is reasonable, I'm inclined to think not. Since I am not considered neutral by these guys (in a he who is not for me is agin me kind of way) I'd appreciate someone having a look at the comments made about Avidor on those pages. Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the "enthusiastic editors" of which JzG speaks. I welcome more input into this issue. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed the pages quickly. Mostly the conflict is about figuring out what weight to give the companies' claims regarding PRT compared with independent analyses and analyses by other parties with varying degrees of involvement. I did find a number of comments (mostly on Talk:ULTra (PRT)) that could be construed as personal in nature, such as Avidor's positions are conspiracy theories with absolutely no verifiable basis. There is a certain amount of discussion of individual editors' motives (on both sides) that doesn't have any direct bearing on article content and could probably be deleted without harming the article's development. Thatcher131 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I await with baited breath some good citations fomr the engineering journals - thus far most of it comes either from designers of never-built systems or academics engaged in acrimony. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for sources describing PRT technology, you might start with this volume that describes 8 years of US-government sponsored research from the 1970s. If that's not enough, take a look at some more recent research on the topic. There have also been fully functioning PRT prototypes built and tested in Germany, the UK, and Japan, and there are several others in active development.

Against this, the main sources of skepticism are:

1. An anonymously written unpublished article which is posted on the advocacy site of PRT's main transit competitor (light rail, which JzG favors), and which has been the subject of at least four rebuttals, and:
2. A political web site run by the aforementioned Road Kill Bill cartoonist, Ken Avidor, for whom JzG has expressed great admiration ([26][27])

JzG has balanced these two sets of sources and decided unilaterally that "skepticism is the majority view" on PRT, and used this as justification for suppressing verifiable information that runs counter to his skeptical view.

After three months, the debate rages on, as one admin has repeatedly reverted good edits from at least four different editors, based solely on the "article balance" argument. As you might imagine, things have gotten heated at times.

The debate is all there, in its full glory, if anyone is interested in reading in it. You'd better set aside about 15 hours, though. :-) A Transportation Enthusiast 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed some comments from Talk:ULTra (PRT) that might be broadly construed as personal attacks on Avidor. Since he has not edited PRT articles since April, I think it is unfair to him to have other editors talking about him and comparing their conduct to his (especially when the comparison is negative to Avidor). (He is not mentioned in Talk:UniModal, and on Talk:Personal rapid transit he was present at the time to defend himself.) Of course, in general I think that discussing the person rather than the content of his or her edits is generally unproductive, but at least the current participants can defend themselves. Thatcher131 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with anything you removed (and I appreciate your dispassionate assistance in this matter), but I do feel we are being a little reactionary here. When Avidor was active he regularly referred to us as "wackos", "con-artists", "cultists", and "crackpots". Nothing in what was just removed remotely approaches that. Does this have anything to do with the fact that Avidor has publicly criticized Wikipedia and has joined this forum? A Transportation Enthusiast 04:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of Avidor before today, much less his new associations. I also did not remove any comments directed to him or about him that dated to times when he was contributing and thus able to respond for himself. I just think it's poor form to make (arguably) negative comments about a user who has chosen to leave, because it forces him to either let the characterizations stand or to return against his wishes to defend himself, and I would have the same view about anyone else who has left the project. Thatcher131 04:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't intend to question your motives. I was just curious if other factors were driving this. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob. It was a fair question. Thatcher131 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I don't have a problem with discouraging or mediating personal attacks. However, I very much do not like the idea that my, and the rest of our, edits have been censored. I will put the comments back in.

If you want to re"delete" them, please use a strikethrough so that future readers know what the hell we were talking about. Fresheneesz 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

These personal attacks on me in the Wikipedia Talk pages appear on Google searches of my name. Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not an attack-blog. If A.T.E and Freshenneez want to keep writing about me, I suggest they create a Wikipedia page on Ken Avidor that accurately presents my views. If they want to attack me, I suggest they get a free blog at Blogger like David Gow did [28].Avidor 04:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you complain to Google? Wikipedia can't be responsible for what Google displays. A Transportation Enthusiast 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just silly. Google just indexes the web; unless you propose that google not index wikipedia at all, obviously wikipedia is responsible for its own content. I think anything said about Avidor while he was an active participant should remain but it is just bad manners to badmouth someone behind their back, even in real life. If Fresheneesz had allowed the comments to remain deleted, they would have disappeared from Google the next time it indexed the site. You could try archiving all the old discussions and tagging the archive page with <nofollow>; I don't know for sure that will work, but it might keep google from scanning the talk archives. Short of a mutual agreement to "censor" the old discussions (in Fresheneesz' terms) I suppose the only other option is to persuade an uninvolved admin to actually delete the comments from the history. Thatcher131 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was, the content had been removed (by you) and if Google still had the old content indexed then there was nothing that Wikipedia could do. I was not aware that Fresheneesz had re-inserted the comments.

But let me also make two additional points:

1. None of us could possibly know that Avidor had decided to stop editing. All we knew was that he hadn't participated in a while, and the fight that he had started was still raging between us and JzG. How were we to know he had left for good?
2. Almost everything that you removed referred to Avidor's well-documented views and claims. How is that considered a personal attack? We and JzG were debating Avidor's positions, which, by the way, are almost completely unfounded in reality. That's not a personal attack, that's stating what is verifiably true -- many of Avidor's claims have been shown to be innacurate or just plain false, including his most oft-repeated claim that PRT is nothing but a hoax, and its promoters, cultists and con-artists. Am I to be accused of hurling attacks for attacking someone's viewpoint that I'm a con-artist? A Transportation Enthusiast 14:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs) threatening per email.

Jbolden has threatened per email to vandalise and/or troll wikipedia. He seemed ok before, so this is very unfortunate. I've already removed him from the mediation cabal. There's not much more I can do. Be on the lookout for any unacceptable behaviour. Kim Bruning 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie. I made no such threat. I will be filling an RFC to address what's going on here but I think a rumor on IRC has gotten out of hand. jbolden1517^Talk 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And where can we see this email you speak of? Lapinmies 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To defy Kim is to commit a act of blasphmey. All hail Kim! ALL HAIL KIM! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found JBolden's mediation help very useful in the past. I ask that you give him a second chance. DavidBailey 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

His mediation skills aren't in question, his ability to handle power is. Ral315 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect Kim Bruning as one of the few users left who manages to keep sane when all hell breaks loose, but I wonder quite how things are developing here. The last I was aware of the situation, the user in question was not quite able to grok the informal nature of the mediation cabal, and I (and several other users) suggested he go beat the mediation committee into shape. I saw no evidence to suggest he was a poor mediator at that time.

Now I see he's branded a troll and various other names under the sun, and I'm confused as to what snapped, and when. Let's all step back for a minute and remember that this is a person who's putting their patience and own sanity on the line to help resolve disputes with other users, and who now faces his peers, but is unable to proceed as would be logical for a bunch of mediators to do so. I don't want to accuse people of taking sides, but there's a hell of a lot of rapid throwing about of words here.

Let's look at this with a half-clear head. JBolden's interactions with other users sometimes leave a lot to be desired, but the same can be said of myself, a number of trusted users on Wikipedia, and even Kim himself. I'm quite convinced at this point that a lot of confusion from a lot of people is contributing to further confusion and a lot of needless upset.

If the mediation cabal is so informal, then where did you obtain the book you now appear to be lobbing? robchurch | talk 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Long story short, Jbolden slammed himself headlong into a wall. Sucks, I thought he was doing well up to that point. He was ok at mediation, he was less skilled as a (co-)coordinator.

I specifically delegated the mediation cabal so I have time to do other things. I kept having to pick up after jbolden-as-coordinator, and wasn't getting around to other things.

He refused to hand over to more competent people in any kind of nice way. I had no time for a lot of trouble. In the end I applied a PowerAnswer.

The mediation cabal is now in the hands of solid people, and there is even a measure of oversight over them. Kim Bruning 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bazzajf

I wonder if someone could look into the behaviour of Bazzajf . I am particularly concerned about this threat. I have been working with SP-KP to attempt to get a factual verifiable article and this is the response I get from a POV warrior trying to wreck the verifiability of teh article. Robertsteadman 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a month - looking over his talk page and his contributions, this sort of abuse and harassment has been going on for far too long. --ajn (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Robertsteadman 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to communicate rationally with the user, but Bazzajf seemed determined to continue to insult people despite the fact that the user has just been blocked for a month for it. I've not intention of letting Bazzajf continue to insult people, including myself. Usertalk page fully protected. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bazzajf is relevant here - IP 62.77.181.16 (an Irish government address, apparently) seems to be only used by Bazzajf, and I suspect he'll pop up on his favourite articles again, so it may be necessary to block that too. --ajn (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this makes the connection quite clear - less the edit but the edit summary comment... As does the fact the anon has added stuff to Bazzajf's user page.... If it was me I'd block both - indefinitely!!!!Robertsteadman 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block is uncalled for, although it's fairly obvious he's evading the block right now. Frankly, I thought a month was too much, too, but that's within reason. Bazzajf has shown a complete inability to remain civil, but I don't believe he's beyond help yet, and he does have some value to the encyclopedia. Powers 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we pussy-foot around far too much with people who are consistently and unrepentantly grossly offensive to others. I've blocked the IP address for a month too, since it only ever seems to have been used by him. This is his sixth or seventh block for edit warring or personal abuse (depending on whether you count the penultimate one) in the month he's been here. The last time he was blocked for personal attacks it was for a week, I don't see that a month is at all excessive as a further step. --ajn (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IP address seems to be on a shared computer with several users, including one other registered Wikipedia user, so the address can't be blocked. --ajn (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits of Starsweep, created the day after I blocked Bazzajf, I'm convinced they are the same person. There's now a permanent block on Starsweep, and two months on Bazzajf and the IP address. --ajn (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

999

• Yes, Ordo means Order. But these are the names of organizations and like the titles of books, are exact. There are TWO FUCKING DISTINCT ENTITIES AND THIS REQUIRES TWO ARTICLES. DIDN"T YOU EVER LEARN LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS? -999 (Talk) 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is having a problem on the Ordo Stella Matutina talk page. I'm requesting something, if anything, can be done about him. Thank you. Zos 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• • User:999 has now AfD'd the article (which he started himself). I admit to having a little trouble understanding the ins and outs of the conflict and the anger, but I have voted opined "Speedy as copyvio", as the article is entirely made up out of quotes—some acknowledged, some not—from external websites. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

User:Homeontherange

Formal complaint about this User who, startlingly, is classified as an 'administrator'! He had for over 6 months attacked UK Tories in or associated with the Conservative Monday Club. This is clearly politically motivated and he is currently nominating numerous of these Tories who have modest biographies for deletion. If such campaigns are OK on Wikipedia I think you should say on your opening page that articles deemed to be giving any merit whatsoever to traditional Tories will be deleted. 81.129.155.181 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If we promise to spank him, would you like to watch? --ajn (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia has used AOL IPs to vandalize my original talk page in the past. Why isn't he banned? Why do trolls, vandals and malactors receive so much respect? Do i have to assume that RickK is right about Wikipedia? JohnHeph 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WiC?--205.188.116.65 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"JohnHeph" is, of course, Johnny the Vandal, and has been permablocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not that this has anythign to do with Gregory Lauder-Frost, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perish the thought. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Not funny, really, just a bit sad. 213.122.71.45 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Raven Symone

Raven Symone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) registered and made all of her contributions so far on June 1. She rather touchingly put a "this user is a kid" userbox and a picture of Raven-Symoné on her page, wrote that she was Raven-Symoné's biggest fan, and enthusiastically edited some pages. The next day, along comes this mean old admin, me, and tells her, with a rusty, unaccustomed attempt at sounding reassuring, that she can't use the name of a real celebrity as her username. Somebody else deleted the fair-use photo. It probably didn't matter, any of it, as she had already stopped editing. Unless she stopped when she logged on and saw my message [swallows]. Anyway, what's next? Do I have to be a monster and indef-block the username so the kid feels unwelcome when/if she next drops in? :-( Bishonen | talk 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I suggest that no action should be taken for now, but if you really want a block to be done, I'll fall on the sword so yall don't have to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, Zzzscout. No, *I* don't want any block to be done, personally. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

It sometimes helps to be able to say "We really can't let you use this name, but if you'll tell me another one you'd like to use, I'll change it for you." In future, if you'd rather not have to tell them yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you, since I can click "rename" and do it straight away. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rose State College and vandalism

Could someone consider blocking 72.198.39.16. There has been silly vandalism edits for several days which I have been reverting. --Bduke 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This anon is continuing to add the same vandalism to this article. --Bduke 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated personal attack by User:Rjensen

I'm getting a little tired of being called pro-slavery.

Rjensen (talk · contribs) removed sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, alleging a pro-slavery POV.[29]. He repeated on the talk page that I was a pro-slavery editor.

The disputed text summarizes some of Hamilton's views, as expressed in this letter; I do not agree with Hamilton, and have said so.[30], last paragraph of diff. Jensen replied that pro-slavery agitators would have minimized Hamilton's work, so I must be one of them. [31].

Not satisfied with removing Hamilton's words, he has now reverted, as proslavery, a direct quotation from James Oliver Horton, Benjamin Banneker Professor of African History[32]. For the source, see the diff or here.

Would someone please deal with this. Septentrionalis 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Armhead!

I've blocked Armhead! (talk · contribs) indefinitely. While he supposedly was a new user his behaviour strongly leads me to suspect that he is a returned blocked or banned user on a serious vandalism spree. Specially he redirected every page he touched to a totally unconnected topic (an article on a British constitutional topic was directed to some town's article, for example!). Newbies don't start editing on WP by doing mass redirects. Usually they don't know how initially to redirect anything. The user seems to me to be someone with plenty of experience and to be deliberately trying to do serious damage, with a number of articles being wiped out and replaced by circular directs, so that they simply would redirect to each other ad infinitum. The fact that he had experience, knew what he was doing, and was deliberately making nonsense redirects, led me to think that this was no first time user, or first time user just messing, but a deliberate serious attack on WP by someone with a vendetta, as so probably someone blocked or banned, hence the block. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism spree, armking3, armking, armking4, armsworth, etc... -- Drini 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Armsnacks ... Pete.Hurd 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked a few Armking accounts yesterday for the exact same behaviour. -- Longhair 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Insane accusations surrounding Armando (blogger)

Will some disinterested parties please review the discussions taking place at Talk:Armando (blogger) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar (2nd nomination) ? A fellow Wikipedia administrator has stopped short of accusing me of contributing to an article "designed to attack and harrass its subject". For the record, the subject of this article disclosed their name publicly on NPR over 8 months ago. Thanks in advance, Silensor 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this request, although not in the same language. I also want to know if a Template:Test2a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) left on a user page for the removal of an Template:AfD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from an article under AfD constitutes a removable personal attack. I also invite to review the 1st AfD and the Deletion Review and my contribution to comment whether any of the accusations against me are warranted. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments such as this are exactly what I'm talking about. Silensor 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

64.229.64.184 making a legal threat

This is how this user responded after being blocked for vandalism:

[33]

What shall we do? Should we block this IP longer, lock its talk page, or both? 69.117.4.237 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not read as a serious threat, and has been recanted in a similar tone of voice. Give them a chance to behave, I say.Tyrenius 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

War at Warren Kinsella

I've got a serious revert war + 3RR + litigation situation at Warren Kinsella, between user:Arthur Ellis and user:Pete Peters. See my talk. I blocked Arthur for 24 hrs for 3RR yesterday, but not Pete, b/c he didn't revert enough times. They're back at it. I need help - I am simply not experienced enough to know what to do with these guys. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to full protect the article in question so the two can come to a discussion instead of revert-warring with each other. If you don't want to yourself WP:RFP would let the possibilities of that be evaluated by other sysops. Cowman109^Talk 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

After attempting mediation with little effect (accusations of sockpuppetry continue to fly and both users are pulling some variation of "Block him!"/"No, not me, him!"), I'm ready to recommend that both user:Arthur Ellis and user:Pete Peters be precluded from editing Warren Kinsella. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vote spamming?

Someone might want to keep an eye on 72.9.105.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for circle vandals

• I've blocked Armsnacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for creating circular redirects. Johntex\^talk 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a guess... see Armhead! immediately above... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency

I blocked this user for a week for several reasons. First of all, he was just coming off of a 4 day block. Secondly, he went right back to attacking others users here and here. We also have him putting Dhimmi up for deletion. It's an article that has been up for over 2 years now. Asking that an article be deleted to resolve a dispute is completely against policy and disruptive. And these are just the first few posts that I ran into when I looked through his contribs. He has an attacking style that I don't think we should tolerate here. And he has alot to learn in terms of civility. His email to me requesting an unblock talked about how he wasn't attacking others. The subject line? "Unblock me, you moron". --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a discussion we had on PAIN regarding this. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This would actually be a significantly better link. :-) Netscott 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Either one works. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True, true. Perhaps significantly was hyperbolic. :-) I just like links that zero right in on a discussion. Netscott 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion on Woohookitty's talk page is quite pertinent as well. Netscott 07:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

HE's latest gem on his talk page (in a reponse to Woohookitty): "Yes, I called you a moron in my e-mail to you. Quit whining about it; WP policy doesn't extend to anything off WP". [34]. In the same diff, more personal attacks: "That Islamic articles would be flooded by people like yourself who fill articles with polemic rants masquerading as fact" which is directed to me; he even attacks Aminz: "Even Aminz is more concerned with not disappointing his Western friends." It doesn't appear as if there is anyone left in Wikipedia who he has not attacked. Perhaps he can go after Jimbo Wales next? - Merzbow 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the thing. In and of themselves, his diffs are not extreme personal attacks. But almost every post of his includes some sort of personal attack. We can't tolerate that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I'm going to indef block him momentarily. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute! That's not enough evidences, I think! He is a helpful editor. It is not fair to block him indef. --Aminz 07:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There's tons more we can offer, Aminz. We aren't objecting to what his views are. It's how he expresses them. He's a helpful editor to those that believe in the same things he does in regards to Islam. To everyone else, he attacks, attacks and attacks. And he's been given chances. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No! Why is he blocked? He is just sincerely expressing himself. He says of what he really think of. His sincerity should be appreciated. Many of us have put a mask on our faces (that is our thoughts and words don't match), he hasn't. That's a point. --Aminz 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and it's a violation of no personal attacks and also of our civility guidelines. If we allowed his kind of behavior, we'd become nothing more than a message board. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs)/His_excellency (talk · contribs)'s sincere expressions range from hostile trolling to outright libel, with a generous complement of racist and sectarian slurs.Timothy Usher 07:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot see why he was blocked then I seriously doubt that any amount of explination will help. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, That's all true but I am trying to show his positive side. We should also consider his hard work. Most of his edits are lenghty showing his interest in wikipedia. He is putting much time on wikipedia (which is also confirmed by his making another username). That's another point. He can be ""potentially"" useful, if he remains civil. But by blocking him indef, wikipedia is losing a "real" 'potential' contributer! --Aminz 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He's been given chances to be civil and if anything, he's digressing. I dunno. I can see scaling it back to 1 week but I just don't see any push towards change here. The 2 posts on Netscott's page were just yesterday. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno and don't have enough evidence to believe he will become civil either. I haven't followed his edits closely. But Jeffrey O. Gustafson seems to have done so and accordingly he is very confident that H.E. is doomed and there is no way back for him. I am personally unexperienced and can't make a good comment --Aminz 08:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He has had enough time on Wikipedia to demonstrate his usefulness, which he failed to do. Thus, the potentiality argument is beside the point. Just out of the most the recent block, he has resumed personal attacks and incivility, also adding a WP:POINT nomination for deletion of Dhimmi to his record. Pecher ^Talk 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at his edits in and around the Dhimmi fiasco, I agree with this block. --Golbez 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the Dhimmi fiasco"? --Aminz 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency's frequent lack of civility is problematic. His pointed commentary regarding User:Pecher, User:Timothy Usher et al is also very problematic as it sets up a battleground on Wikipedia which no doubt is disruptive (one can be sure that if I were in their positions I'd likely be making efforts to see his full departure). In my view his recent tendency to discourage Muslim editors from contributing to Wikipedia is additionally problematic (the way I see it when a person repeatedly does this it becomes rather trollish). I think it is wrong to think that his recent AfD for Dhimmi was done in bad faith. As I mentioned in the above discussion I have seen much good come from the AfD process in terms of article improvement. If there was such thing as a AfRC (Article for Re-Creation - essentially starting over from scratch on an article) I'm sure he would have gone that route as such was his goal... but there isn't something like AfRC so he went the AfD route. As I mentioned on Woohookitty's talk page I honestly believe that User:His excellency was acting in good faith in following User:Aminz lead in helping to improve the Dhimmi article of late and that I thought it was a pity that he was blocked in this regard. At this point this discussion may not matter as he may have already decided to just leave the project but if he expresses a desire, based upon what's happening on the Dhimmi article I think he should be given one last chance and have his block reduced back to 1 week. Given his "moron" comments I will understand if this suggestion isn't followed but under the circumstances I think such commentary isn't surprising being that he wasn't warned prior to this last block and he was not notified of his being discussed on WP:PAIN. Additionally it is true that his commentary on my talk page was a bit excessive but in the light of my own last semi-censored commentary on his talk page I feel that his response was relatively civil. Thanks. Netscott 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency disputes the NPOVness of Dhimmi. Instead of going through dispute resolution like you are supposed to, he put the article up for deletion. The deletion policy page makes it pretty clear that articles that one feels aren't NPOV should be edited so they are NPOV. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, but that's not "the Dhimmi fiasco"! --Aminz 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. I can call it what I want. I can call it "the Dhimmi kitty" if I want. It's my term. --Golbez 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion and I have no problem with that. For our purposes, it's disruptive. And after he was told that this was not something he should be doing, he responded with a sarcastic comment. AnonEMouse tried to explain to his excellency that violating NPOV was not a reason to delete an article, H.E. misquoted the AfD policy. AnonEMouse then nicely explained that His excellency was mistaken. His excellency's response was to take another shot at editors. My point here is that we have a user who was warned for no personal attacks, did it anyway, was blocked...came back...attacked people again...put an invalid afd vote...when it was pointed out to him that it was invalid, he misquoted a policy and then instead of responding back to Anon's note, he just attacked others again. It's very troll-like. It's disruptive. and we can't tolerate it here. I don't think he has any intention of following our policies. The users who tried warn him that his afd was incorrect were an admin (CrazyRussian) and a very good newer user (AnonEMouse), who both know what they are talking about. In other words, they didn't have an axe to grind. In fact, they were both trying to be helpful. And yet he ignored them just like he ignored the warnings and the blocks. He knew that what he was doing was against policy and yet he kept at it anyway. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Something that hasn't been mentioned

Before June 7th, His Excellency was contributing as User:Amibidhrohi. I just mention this because Amibidhrohi was blocked 5 or 6 times going back to January 7th, 2006. So this isn't new. It may look like this is a relatively new user but it isn't. He just changed usernames. So he's had lots and lots of chances. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true and you are correct that he has already been given a decent number of chances but to his credit rather than do sockpuppet mongering with his new account he did identify it as being a new account (I think sockpuppet's probably a bit of a minomer now as his last edit under that account was 05:33, 7 June 2006 which inclines one to think that account has been abandoned). Netscott 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure we can give credit to someone for not violating policy. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:SOCK says, "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name". So if the other account was effectively abandoned and wasn't subsequently used to edit does it still qualify as a sockpuppet? With that line if a person ceases editing on a previous account then if they start a new one, where's the policy obliging that person to refer to their previous (and abandoned) account. Am I wrong here? Netscott 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He didn't even edit under his new account until a week 16:34, 14 June 2006 after his last edit (05:33, 7 June 2006) as Amibidhrohi (hmmm sounds outwardly respectful of the 1 week block User:Tom harrison gave him on 13:06, 7 June 2006). Netscott 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My main point isn't that he was using a sockpuppet. My point was that this isn't something that just started on the 14th. He's been blocked for various offenses going back several months. I think it's a moot point whether this new account is a "sockpuppet" or not. Honestly, I don't really care. I was pointing out that his history goes back much longer than his time as his excellency. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I also don't think that we should give someone credit or "points" for not using an account as a sockpuppet. Points for making good contributions? Sure. But for not using a sockpuppet when he could have? I don't think we can. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not consensus for this block

There is not consensus for this indefinite block. I for one disagree with it, and I appeal to the people who want to keep His Excellency indefinitely from contributing to the encyclopedia to at least do it right: unblock him and request arbitration, with a writeup of actual evidence. What I see at present is a week-long block on the basis of listing an article for AFD (a listing I can't for the life of me see as trolling) and two instances of speaking sharply/sarcastically to a guy who was yelling at him (the "victim" Netscott seems to be in agreement with this view). And next I see an extension to an indefinite block, without any further specific evidence adduced. That's not the way to do it. Please use the dispute resolution process. What is the Arbitration Committee for, if not for things like this? Bans for exhausting the community's patience aren't for productive contributors with a sharp tongue, they're for people like this. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

I will restore the 1 week block. I am not bending any further than that. honestly, that's all I wanted in the first place. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, please read through this discussion, Bishonen, if you haven't done so. Lots of evidence here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm done. Woohookitty, I've spoken civilly to you. I wouldn't have expected you to advise me to "read through" a discussion I'd just commented on. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Well Bishonen, last night you posted on my user page and suggested that I could possibly have been influenced by Timothy Usher's statements on PAIN even though I hadn't been. Not sure what the difference is. You were suggesting the same thing, i.e. that I hadn't looked through His excellency's edits. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"two instances of speaking sharply/sarcastically"? You can't be serious Bishonen. Just last night on his talk page (before his new block) he attacked three people in one edit. Did you see all the cites posted in PAIN here? What about all his previous personal attacks under Amibidhrohi? The number easily runs in the dozens. - Merzbow 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What about them? The Amibidhrohi account hasn't edited since June 7. The list Timothy Usher posted on WP:PAIN is pretty old, too. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, they're supposed to stop something ongoing, and be based on something recent. Woohookitty's block was—on an AfD listing and two particular edits—that's fine, but I suppose I may have an opinion about the substantiality of the basis. I'm perfectly serious. Woohookitty, I'm sorry you don't see the difference. I was not suggesting the same thing, as I don't think it would have been in the least discreditable for you to be influenced by TU's list and his (actually untrue) claim that it was recent. It's good to assume good faith. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Rhadamanthus emerges from Hades for a brief moment

Folks, an AfD nomination is not part of evidence. This is very important. If a well established article is nominated, it's going to pass. We must never block and never make listing AfD's as part of evidence. The fellow in question is definitely abusive and inappropriate, but when you're blocking someone you can't take their response as evidence, either. If we start demanding that the people we block be nice in return, we're essentially asking people to apologize. We are not in power here. Administrators are not in charge. Administrators are the executive of policy, so we don't get to demand that nasty users apologize. Is HE worth blocking? Sure. Is he disruptive? Sure. I agree with moving to a second week's block, as the user is still fighting, but then go to ArbCom. Seriously. The insulted getting revenge with blocks just leads to more and it justifies every user who claims that "administrators" are the problem. Geogre 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"The insulted getting revenge with blocks just leads to more and it justifies every user who claims that 'administrators' are the problem." You are reading into my motives. I really don't appreciate that. I did the 1 week block BEFORE he called me a moron. I didn't do the indefinite block. Nor would I have. I'm ok with a 1 week block or an indefinite block. But assuming that I did this out of some personal vandetta is uncalled for. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Then use ArbCom. Once you begin renewing a block because he's personally unpleasant to you, you're involved in the conflict, and it is inappropriate to up the blocks. As for your motives, I'm telling you how it will assuredly look to others. Use ArbCom or hand off. It's simple, and the only reason not to do so is passion, and passion is the reason you must. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:DR, WP:BITE. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who you are referring to. :) Geogre isn't new. Neither am I. And actually, neither is His excellency. He has been posting under that name and another name going back to January. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Geogre, that's nonsense. Nominating articles spuriously for AfD, when one should know better, is certainly disruptive, and just like any other act, it's something that can be used to suggest a block should occur. Responding inappropriately is similarly unacceptable. He merits a long block, and I don't think an indefinite block would be out of place. I understand there are people who have issues with authority who are out digging for things to be upset about them, but we shouldn't be afraid to do what's right for the encyclopedia just to keep such people happy. --Improv 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • • Nominating spuriously for an AfD can be part of a general pattern, but one when presented in evidence at ArbCom. However, I take a very strong line on this: an AfD nomination is not evidence by itself of disruption. First, it doesn't disrupt anything, as the AfD will go away automatically. Second, "spurious" is way too open to interpretation. I've seen many people want to hang people for nominating for deletion, especially during the moronic "all schools must be kept, no matter the content of the article, and all who nominate schools for deletion are trolls who should be blocked." Secondly, though, an inappropriate response is just nastiness. This user is nasty, but an indefinite block? No. That's ArbCom territory. Personal attacks being justification? Absolutely not. Finally, having the offended hand out the block is simply not done. This is not according to our procedures in any way. The advantages to handing off the block are numerous. The disadvantage is one: you don't get revenge. The long history of this user makes for a compelling ArbCom case, but not solo action. There is no divine right of admins. Insulting someone else vs. one of us is alike a hand-off to someone else for handling. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think admins have divine right, nor do I think that insulting them is any more meaningful than anyone else. However, AfD for a topic that is completely within the bounds of an encyclopedia and clearly must be covered (unlike schools, which are contentious), purely for the reason that he does not like the content, is problem behaviour. The AfD was for the wrong reason, and was indeed spurious and a misuse of process. I think maybe the reasoning for an indefinite block would be a bit loose though (at least, provided the user has positive edits -- I have not checked), thanks to this discussion. Arbcom cases are generally reserved for when there is significant contention over a user's behaviour, or when the user has a long (and at least partly positive) history with the project. Admins should act, so much as possible, act as if they had no ego, thinking only of the good of the project. If Woohookitty was one of those insulted, then it probably would've been better if (s?)he had asked someone else to review the situation, blocking as appropriate. It is, however, inappropriate to assume that everytime admins make a judgement call, they must be on a power trip. --Improv 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Improv, you and I are generally in agreement, but I think that ArbCom is the proper court for very long blocks and hard bans. Short of that, we're being fickle and personal. If the argument is that ArbCom is slow and creaky, then we need to find a way to speed it, but if we unilaterally act and impose anything more than a week, we're turning Wikipedia into "I think you're bad." Because I don't trust any one, I trust everyone. I am often wrong, and so are you, but together we will be wrong much less of the time. This particular user is despicable, in my opinion. I think he probably is now irredeemable. However, I don't want any one of us making that call, as it should require many of us together to make it. If it isn't via ArbCom, it has to be via something beyond the individual administrator. I agree that admins have to act within their judgment in the interest of the project, but that judgment ought to be "Wow, this person needs to be examined by the community so that the community can speak." Traditionally, that has been via RFaR. If ArbCom is broken, we need a new fix, but when water flows around an obstruction in the stream, the result isn't always the best one. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wish I hadn't blocked him in the first place. Didn't want or expect a brouhaha. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think most of all it's the indefinite (which should be rare, handed out by ArbCom, and done after consensus, not before) and then the reasoning -- that he was nasty. NPA is not policy, and blocking for it should never short circuit all our rules, as it makes admins the lords and masters of the personalities on Wikipedia. We don't get to do that. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Wrong on all counts. Admins do have the power to block people indefinitely, and they do so every day. If every single disruptive editor went before the ArbCom, we would need perhaps ten times as many arbitrators as we have now. WP:NPA is a policy, not a guideline; it's unbelievable that you, Geogre, keep claiming that it's a guideline even after it was demonstrated to you during the discussion of the previous indefinite block of His excellency that it was a policy. His excellency seems to have concluded from his previous indefinite block by Tom Harrison and the subsequent unblock by Bishonen that he has a blank check to do what he pleases; this case will only reinforce his conviction. Pecher ^Talk 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are misreading a vast amount. It is not a policy in blocking. Read it again. Its policy force is, "It is our policy not to insult people." If indefinite blocks are going on every day, and if they're going on for personal attacks, then every one of those is out of process. In fact, if you read carefully, you'll see that they are not handed out individually for insults, and people are broadening, inappropriately, the "community patience" blocks. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

George, NPA is indeed policy. If you don't think it should be, maybe you should try to change it. Woohookitty blocked for a week, which you seem to agree (now) is appropriate. Jeffrey O. Gustafson extended the block to indefinite. Woohookitty took it back to one week. So in a week he can come back. I think an indefinite block is appropriate; that's what I gave him before. Based on past experience, when he comes back he'll spew more vitriol. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tom. I don't have a problem with a week but on the other hand, I don't have alot of confidence that this user is going to stop doing what he was doing. It's not about assuming good faith. I think when you have a user who has been blocked 8 times, it shows a certain inability to change. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to a week. I agree that he's awful, and I think that he should be RFaR'd. What I don't agree with it indefinite blocking for insulting language. NPA is a policy that says it is our policy not to attack. Note that there are no sanctions there. Note also that the proper course of action specified is the removal of the insult to an archived location with a placeholder saying where it went. Not blocking forever. I think this user should be gone, but not by unilateral action. It should be a slam dunk, fast ArbCom case, if ArbCom is meeting quickly. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my take... nobody is claiming that a single AfD in and of itself is disruption. But in combination with all his other disruption, and his clearly bad-faith misreading of AfD policy, it's a large strike against him. And as of yet I've seen only marginal evidence that H.E. is attempting to make productive edits. Within the past week to Dhimmi alone he has blanked material against consensus [35], quote-dumped against WP:NOT policy (with no references to boot) [36], added material using blatantly unreliable sources [37], and repeatedly re-restored examples of such after being reverted and chastised by other editors. Is he capable of contributing? Who knows. Combined with his dozens of personal attacks, racist statements, etc., I would say he's clearly exhausted the community's patience. But if the indefinite is not going to stick, then I'm all for sending this to ArbComm. Somebody want to write it up? - Merzbow 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all I've been saying. I even think that you're right that this AfD was not the action, but rather the continuation of an action, that is evidentiary. However, I don't want any hint of a rumor of a whisper of a precedent set for blocking anyone for making an AfD, no matter how absurd or peevish it is. AfD doesn't hurt anything unless every voter there is asleep or crazy. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well doing what he did is disruptive. And I am sure that at some point, someone has been blocked for a disruptive AfD. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rich Doctors For Choice

I blocked this account as an inappropriate username. Requesting review. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Not sure I agree. Pushing a POV in a username is against policy?? I didn't think it was. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's inflamatory (blockable per policy), in the same vein that Billionaires for Bush is... If one ignores (the whole 3) POV edits supporting this position, one could say the name is representative of a role account (which are, of course, blocked on sight). It's a good block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. Offensive usernames are unacceptable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move of an in-progress requested move poll by an anon.

An anon, 72.60.226.29 (talk · contribs) cut and pasted the polls from Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid to Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid. That lost the edit history, which is needed for vote checking, and broke some links, so I reverted the page at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid and edited Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid to explain what happened.

I don't think this was vandalism; more like overdoing WP:BOLD. The other edits by that anon look fine, although this anon seems to know Wikipedia rather well. I've left a note on the talk page for the IP address, but the anon may not see it. So I'd like to ask that that IP address be watched for unusual activity, and given a brief block if necessary to get the anon's attention. Thanks. --John Nagle 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am Experiancing Continous Personal attacks

I think I am having bad luck, because I already contacted two absent admin and left a message on a possibly wrong board? The user:Grandmaster has some sort of problem with me and insists on defaming me to other editors. He also leaves a angonictic message next to mine on talk pages or makes uncivil attacks. These are attacks are baseless and notting can validate uncivil behaviour and trolling!

These accusations have no sources and I even let them go out of good fiath originally, but they persist against me and now include user:Baku87 As show here for example.[[38]]. The user who made this also did not sign which put together with an anoymous comment is not a good sign.

I would like to know on what grounds user:Baku87 and user:Grandmaster are making these claims and how they can justify outright attacks. I have never made any negative comments or contributions. I notice also that one of the users has been warned continously to be civil. They continue to make these claims without any proof.

Here are more examples; [39] Once, again can this user please provide proof for these claims especially if he is going to continue to make them, especially the anti-Azari statments he keeps claiming I made??? I have already warned but he ocntinues.

user:Grandmaster is continuing to make unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here again [40]. I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him once on his talk page to be polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part. But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me and is still continuing to do so as you can see above. Any comment I make on a talk page is labelled POV and attacked right away? It is automatically lablled anti-Azari! I have no idea how saying every human being is equal and that we are all brothers and sisters is bad or anti-Azari? These comments are groundless, uncivil and simple attacks.

Can an administrator please talk to him as an administrator. I do not appreciate this type of harassment. Like I have said and will continue to say again I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and to enjoy editing. Feel free to scutinize my contributions to Wikipedia and see if there is anything negative about them. I have expressed views that are commonplace amongst Iranian Azaris which I feel does not automatically categorize me as another user with the same views.

User:Grandmaster continues to accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks or conclusions? He is basing some of his rationale on articles I have edited and continuing to claim I am another user, which is okay as long as it is civil, but it is not civil these wrong assertions are expressed through actually uncivil attacks. Once again my views are a commonplace view amongst Iranian Azaris and that in itself does not mean anything. I have warned him and acted in good faith, but he still persisits with his attacks. I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Can you please get him to provide proof about the anti-Azari statments I have made! I am pretty sure I would be blocked if I made any anti-anything statments! It is easy to make such assertions, but can he provide proof before attacking my name on talk pages?

His claims does not make personal attacks legitmate or okay nor do they allow uncivil behaviour. He continues to make them and say I am anti-Azari! I do not appreciate this type of trolling and personal attacks. Thank you all and my apologize for writting so much! 69.196.164.190

I suggest all the parties ignore each other, and keep discussion pages purely for discussion about an article's content, and not the article's subject. --Golbez 09:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CB Brooklyn

CB Brooklyn (talk · contribs) has been using unnecessarily nasty edit summaries refers to others as "trolls", MONGO is a troublemaker and needs to be flushed out of wikipedia, and when I asked him to make sure quoted items he placed into the article Steven E. Jones are referenced, he removes my posts from his talk page stating, removed toilet stuff, delete crap from toilet head and my favorite so far, delete garbage written by sick fuck. CB Brooklyn was recently blocked for 3RR on the same article. [41]. Would someone please ask him to be more polite in his edit summaries. Thanks.--MONGO 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. -- SCZenz 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the user has already been amply warned about personal attacks. I gave him a reminder of NPA, CIVIL, and to not removed talk page comments, along with brief block (12 hours), and told him that blocks would increase rapidly if he made further blatant personal attacks. There's no excuse for name-calling of this sort. -- SCZenz 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that while CB Brooklyn's behaviour is clearly improper... MONGO himself has been calling Brooklyn and others 'trolls and morons'. If there is "no excuse for name-calling of this sort", which I agree with, then being an admin should not be a free pass to antagonize people and then say, 'look what he did', if they respond in kind. Admins are supposed to behave better than the average user, not worse. --CBD 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your insults just keep piling up. I want you to demostrate in that edit you linked how I called Brooklyn a moron or a troll. It was a non directive comment...maybe I meant you...maybe I meant someone else, who knows. Point is, I can see no comparison to the edit you linked with the one in which Brooklyn reverts polite messages I post on his talk page and uses the edit summary of "delete garbage written by sick fuck".--MONGO 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You request 'demonstration' of a connection you cannot see. Very well. Cyde questioned your blocks of people you were in a content dispute with [42]. You responded by arguing that your blocks were justified because those people were "trolls", "POV pushing morons", "conspiracy theorists", and "nitwits" who were "vandalizing" and posting "crap" -> [43] [44]. You used those terms to describe the people you blocked... namely (per your log of blocks) Pokipsy76, SkeenaR, and CB Brooklyn. Not me or "who knows". Those three people. Can you see it now? --CBD 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can break that down if we want to take up the rest of the noticeboard. I was conversing with cyde....Brooklyn was responding to me. Indirect-direct. If you think my actions so egregious, then why not block me...you seem to relish wheel warring, which is pretty much a big no-no as far as some lofty powers here think...but that didn't stop you, no, you're exempt! Special!--MONGO 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, calm down. The fact is, MONGO came here instead of unilaterally blocking CB Brooklyn. Let's not used this demonstration of responsibility on MONGO's part as an opportunity to criticize him. It's a bit odd, frankly, that a side conversation about a completely uninvolved editor is being brought into this discussion. JDoorjam Talk 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with JD. MONGO was asked not to impliment even obvious blocks against these users. Instead of using his tools in this instance, he did EXACTLY what he was told to do by his RFC - he was told to come here and present his case. He did. As such, he deserves praise for his appropriately changed behavior, not CBD going back to edits from just after the RFC was filed. If you, CBD, had wanted to block him for his edit on the 26th, you would have. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Coming here to ANI is what many in the RFC are asking of MONGO. CB_Brooklyn (talk · contribs) is clearly violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and a block by a third-party admin is justified here. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the block was justified. Yes, it is good that MONGO got someone else to do it. No, MONGO calling CB Brooklyn 'troll', 'conspiracy theorist', and 'moron' and then calling for a block and misrepresenting the history when CB Brooklyn responded in kind does not "deserve praise". --CBD 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CBD, your harassment is getting tiresome.--MONGO 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe MONGO could use more polite words ("moron" is inappropriate). But, take a look at Wikipedia:What is a troll. -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specifically, if we could as admins, all begin to demonstrate civil behavior it would be easier for us to enforce civil behavior. Any time we use words like "troll" or "idiot" we're mostly doing so out of laziness. It's simply not helpful, is not required, and almost always results in pointless discussion. Use polite and precise language wherever possible, things will go smoother.,
brenneman ^{L} 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For whatever my opinion as a non-admin is worth, everybody who has posted in this section has made a valid point. It probably deserves bearing in mind that everyone here has been engaged in a necessary, but very unpleasant excercise over the last couple of days. Therefore it is only natural that not everyone behaves the way they would like themselves to. I agree with the block, and I agree with Mongo referring it first. I also agree that comments on the block should not be made in the same nature as the reason for the block in the first place. In Mongo's defense, it would be hard for me not to be upset if edit summaries such the ones mentioned were directed at me. I'm taking an interest here because I would like it if we could edit articles without having to fight each other all the time. In my opinion, the articles would improve a lot better and faster if we didn't have to spend so much energy on conflict or resolution. I know that there are real issues involved in what should legitimately be included in the 9/11 articles, which naturally make for disagreements to arise, but please let's not try to be provocative with each other about it. I say that to all parties involved. I like to try and improve articles with whatever I might be able to contribute. I find it fun, educating, and challenging, but this kind of stuff makes it a lot harder for all of us when we spend our time on fisticuffs and what not instead of some nice writing or research or even just sharing some good information with each other. SkeenaR 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a little name calling as I do on occasion have a sense of humor, and CB Brooklyns edit summaries are less offensive than some I have seen. I am familiar with his other posts from elsewhere, and they show a similar temperment, but saw no reason to drag all that out...I wasn't even asking for a block if he would abstain from this manner of conversation, so all I was doing was requesting a neutral third party to step in, since his responses to my requests were simply becoming worse, not better. I do agree with the block, however. I also agree that all of us involved in the disagreements on the 9/11 articles, myself included, could tone things down a lot. Thanks.--MONGO 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome, I just hope I'm not being naive in thinking that things are improving. Thanks for considering what I had to say. SkeenaR 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

user:AlexWilkes

I've been watching this user for a couple of weeks. He is going through the Wikipedia entries for English football league teams and making amendments. His usual practice is to add a summary of some recent information about the club near the top of the article, irrespective of the content of the rest of article. Cue alarmed response and warning messages from an editor with that article on his watch-list. This is odd behaviour... I'm inexperienced here, but I doubt that most of what he's done counts as vandalism. He ignores all messages on his Talk page. From the photos he posts (which get deleted) he's clearly young and he's also pretty new to Wikipedia. Please take a look at his Talk page and review his contributions... be glad of some more experienced (and heavyweight!) input here. Many thanks. --Dweller 08:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like a candidate for Wikipedia:Clueless newbies to me. If he still fails to correspond with other editors, maybe a short block will get his attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV...

• 210.200.105.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The yearpage vandal is at it again, this time under only one IP (this one wasn't blocked, apparently.) Please block the whole range (I've seen 226 through 232 used) for a long period of time. Grandmasterka 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest the admins to read the information posted by Mikkalai at Talk:Heisei#Future Japanese dates yesterday before taking any actions in this matter, as well as this. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that this IP range has not discussed these changes anywhere, AFAIK, and their edits continue to be reverted by half a dozen editors. They are changing other things without explanation as well. Grandmasterka 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This IP range has been making edits to the Japanese future year categories on year pages (changing them to "unknown") without any discussion. They have also changed categories in certain ways (sometimes removing decade categories, or placing an asterisk in categories (this is a prime example.) I'm honestly not entirely sure what to do about it, because changing the Japanese years may actually be valid; but I wish the IP would, you know, discuss this with someone. Grandmasterka 09:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User: F 22 - Users who exhaust the community's patience - well mine anyway

OK - I know I can look elsewhere but the puerile activities of F 22 (talk · contribs) are mostly pointless and breach What wikipedia is not with regard to user space. Do we do anything with such users or do we just ignore? Suspect this does not quite fit within Users who exhaust the community's patience--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage looks perfectly acceptable to me. Lapinmies 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's because I cleaned it. Of course, I wouldn't expect GNAA folk such as yourself to care much about keeping an appropriate userpage anyhow. --Improv 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmph, was that a personal attack? I am not amused. Lapinmies 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a personal attack, and a totally unwarrented one. Had the above exchange not taken place, I'd have looked at the user page and thought the objection was to the mass of boxen. I don't think that "Communisim Sucks a Fat one!" in enought to exhaust our patience. He's made very few article edits, but so what? They've been useful edits. Someone is already having a nice chat with him on his user page, so why does this need to come to ANI? - brenneman ^{L} 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

GNAA Folk, as Lapinmies is just another in a long list of those who have or had a presence on Wikipedia, have a habit of intentionally inflammatory and bizarre userpages that have frequently shown, at the very least, a lack of interest in harmonious participation in the project. This is a matter of fact, holding from the various incarnations of SPUI (an otherwise good editor in modern times who, apart from some current disputes, does not push things *too* far) to GNAA Timecop and the various other now permabanned members of the club. I find the attitude unfortunate, but we should not shy from speaking the truth out of being politic. I don't think my statement above should be construed as an attack. --Improv 05:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not a member. My userpage is satire. Lapinmies 07:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless we have particular edits that are problematic, it's bad form to make judgements based upon identity. To use someone's identarian characteristics pejoratively is a personal attack. That seems pretty straight forward to me.
brenneman ^{L} 14:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When an identity has as its primary goal to make trouble, I think it's wholly appropriate. I am unapologetic. --Improv 22:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I came upon the user because of problematic edits, perhaps not quite enough to warrant any action, other than a warning, which I gave, but ... and then you look at the sum of his other contributions, his user page, and I wondered, how do we manage? what should I do? - which is why I came here, for guidance.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have blocked the user for two days for continuing to maintain inappropriate content on their userpage. --Improv 14:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Permanently Banned Sockpuppeteer Jason Gastrich on Meta

Wikipedia's worst sockpuppeteer, Jason Gastrich, is now operating accounts on Meta. See [45] and [46] for his continued abuse of Wikimedia projects to push his POV. He is sockpuppeting and vote-soliciting on Meta, too. I would prefer to remain anonymous due to his off-Wiki stalking.

• a) Why are you telling us here? Wikipedia administrators have no special powers on meta.
• b) Seeing as the account was created in January 2006, I don't see how this can be described as 'now operating accounts on meta'.
• c) The accounts' sole contributions are to the user page and user talk page.
• Are you trolling? Proto///type 14:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He is using Meta to further his agenda, and spamvertise his website. Given that Wikipedia projects are NOT for self promotion, it is asinine for anyone, let alone a permanently banned POV pusher, to self-promote. Should he be allowed to use Meta to promote his agenda when he is permanently banned from all Wikipedia projects? He has used sockpuppets on Meta (the most obvious of which is Ruth Ginsling) to keep his self-promoting userpage in place, and round up a posse of meatpuppets, in typical Gastrich fashion. I posted this here because I am not familiar with dealing with problems on Meta. Surely there are WP admins who are also Meta admins.

I agree with Proto; if he's abusing process on Meta, take it up with the admins on Meta. It's not like we can round up a posse here and charge across the border in hot pursuit. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. We run into that on AIAV. "Someone's vandalizing the Korean Wikipedia". Great. Go tell them. :) Admins can be admins only on the project that they have been approved as admins on, no other projects. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no love for Jason, but reading his talk page on Meta, it looks to me like there are some users who just will not let it go, to the point of stalking and provoking him. This should not be spilling back over here, and really, shouldn't be happening at Meta either. · rodii · 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

160.94.224.179, Aluminium, Sulfur

Indef blocked User:Nokhc (aka User:160.94.224.179, User:128.101.29.12, User:Diched, User:RESURGAM, User:24.118.210.212) keeps returning to Aluminium, Sulfur, User talk:160.94.224.179, etc. Repeatedly blocked (currently 24 h), the IP has been static for a month with no other contribs, may I request a longer-term block on the most active 160.94.224.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Femto 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with User:Stephen Hodge

I posted the following at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (edited for brevity):

User:Stephen Hodge attempted to invade User:RandomCritic's privacy by posting information that he believed would reveal User:RandomCritic's identity on User talk:RandomCritic.

In the course of discussion at Talk:Anatta#Response to RandomCritic I repeatedly told User:Stephen Hodge that I would not reveal personal information about myself and requested that he cease his demands that I do so. Further details are in the statement below.

In the course of a content/POV dispute at Talk:Anatta, User:Stephen Hodge began by criticizing my use of Wikipedia handle that was not my actual name:

"On the other hand, as you are one of these people who conveniently chose to hide behind a childish pseudonym..."

I responded by explaining why I did not use my real name:

"I am sorry that you find my handle childish, but it is a matter of no significance at all and I see no reason for you to bring it up. I am disinclined to provide any personal information on Wikipedia, as it easily opens up opportunities for abuse."

User:Stephen Hodge replied:

"I bring up the question of your pseudonym because it conveniently conceals your identity and prevents others from checking your credentials which, as in this instance, you choose not to share. Credentials are important when evaluating a person's articles and critiques thereof -- if one challenges the accuracy of some article, it would be nice to know what a person's qualifications are for doing this. [...] Unless one has real fears of persecution, this habit of using pseudonyms is rather childish in my opinion and more suited to informal chatrooms."

I again rejected his call for my personal information:

"As for your demands for personal information about me and my history, they are impertinent and immaterial, and I have no intention of satisfying your curiosity and opening myself up to hate mail, the entire spectrum of internet harrassment, and other forms of attacks. You may stop asking."

User:Stephen Hodge responded with the following two messages at User talk:RandomCritic:

"I also note from Fanart-Central Net that you and Yoji are known to each other outside of the Wikipedia pages, as well as giving your actual identity and some other interesting information about yourself, if that can be believed.--Stephen Hodge 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"

"Gosh, got that down quickly -- but it was a only pseudonym ! Don't worry: I won't divulge your real name, though it wasn't too hard to find -- I'm only interested in your Wikipedia input. Still, nice pictures. Have you done any more ?--Stephen Hodge 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"

As a note of explanation, "Yoji" is User:Stephen Hodge's nickname for User:Vapour, a person entirely unknown to me outside of Wikipedia. The person User:Stephen Hodge discovered at Fanart-Central is not me and is a person unknown to me. However, I do not believe this is relevant to User: Stephen Hodge's attempt to find and publicize personal information about me, which (he believes) is accessible at this site. I note that Wikipedia:Harassment states that posting personal information is harassment, "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct". I regard this as a form of intended harassment, and I take his message on my talk page as an implicit threat to continue to try to find information about me and publicize it on Wikipedia. And although there is no actual link to any correct information about me, I am concerned that User:Stephen Hodge's message may lead, or may have already led, to harassment of the person he has incorrectly identified as me. Given that this attempted harassment follows my explicit request not to seek personal information about me, I have reason to believe that User:Stephen Hodge will not respond to my own requests to cease his efforts to find and publicize my identity, and therefore request arbitration.

This request was rejected for arbitration with the following comment:

• Reject. The posting of personal information about other editors is already forbidden. Administrators are urged to handle this in the proper and normal way when it occurs, which may include the blocking of the offending user for a time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am therefore bringing the matter to the notice of the administrators. RandomCritic 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• You two are Buddhists, are you? Really? --ajn (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cicero Dog

I have now indef blocked Cicero Dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the second time (I shorted the first one, to give him a second chance), for disruption. A look through his edit history should make this fairly clear, here's a few, picked semi at random: [47] [48] [49] (that links to Wikipedia:Orange Order, which I speedy deleted, feel free to restore and sent to MFD if anyone wants) [50] [51] . There's also the sockpuppetry, and creation of other 'projects' that got deleted (I can't remember their titles right now, I'm sure they can be dug out if needed. Posting block here for review. Petros471 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this. I, Ian, and many CCD members have warned him for action at CCD. I have suspended him once, and have now expelled. Action elsewhere is also unacceptable. Computerjoe's talk 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems valid to me (however since one of those recently disruptive posts was made to my talk and aimed at me, it is probably best I be ingnored...) Ian¹³/t 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mouse Snuff Film"

An AOL anon has been persistently inserting a link to a "Mouse Snuff Film" to the House mouse article, which I've been reverting. I'd like to have an uninvolved party take a look at this, as it may not be obvious whether this should be considered simple vandalism or a genuine content dispute. (Also, if it's the latter, I'm running out of my three reverts.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's now sprotected. Gamaliel 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They make films on that? Boy, the stuff I learn on Wikipedia... - Merzbow 17:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User reordering talk page comments

I don't have much time to review the following, can another admin attend to it? El_C 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page: Hi El C, there are some antics occurring on the Fidel Castro talk page. No it's not a content dispute surprisingly, it's a user named User:Teemu Ruskeepää attempting a radical experiment in talk page restructuring. He's trying to have all comments pinned to his "discussion tree", rather than in the traditional chronological manner. He tried this on the blocked Cuba page which had some merit - but subsequently attempted it on the busy Castro page. Users gave it a go but universally became bamboozled by the lack of clarity and the apparent loss of comments.

Teemu took this badly. He tried to move everyone's comments to various points of the page - unilaterally rejected the concept of archiving and insisted that he had the answer to wikipedias problems. Of course, a consensus poll proved otherwise. This has not deterred young Teemu, and he is now adding lengthy polls to each discussion! With some rather uncivil comebacks to users calling for him to come down from his "discussion tree". I've laid out a programme of response if he continues causing talk page chaos [52], but need an administrator to enforce the will of the people if he continues. Do you know of any such admin?--Zleitzen 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Zleitzen. That sounds like a misuse of the talk page. I'll place a note on WP:ANI about it. Regards, El_C 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Phony account created to appear to be me

I'm user Nagle (talk · contribs). On 25 June 2006, someone created NagIe (talk · contribs). (The second from last letter in the phony is a capital i, not a lower case l, which look the same in the default font).

They then copied my user page (User:Nagle) to the phony account's user page (User:NagIe), making it clear that this is a phony user. Then they used the new account to remove a "prod" I'd placed on Kwin Alexander Dark. No useful edits have been made with the phony account.

Please block this phony as a vandalism-only account. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

Could an admin please investigate User:AbdulRahim@gmail.com and User:MaryLouise@gmail.com who I suspect are sockpuppets of banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. This editor, like the banned user, is making petty edits to Irish related articles and making claims that other editors are "censoring", "revisionists" and "vandalising" them - the many of hallmarks of the banned user. Please investigate. Djegan 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if someone has turned out the lights but two recent samples of this editors work [53],[54](classic RMS nonsense); whilst this escapade proves they are one-in-the same[55]. Some one please investigate and bring closure. Djegan 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• MaryLouise@gmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still doing bad-faith edits on various articles. Can an admin block please? Demiurge 19:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the non-intervention by administrators on this user one can only conclude that their is severe inaction in wikipedia regarding vandalism. Djegan 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You should take sock puppet investigations to WP:SSP! Iolakana|^T 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked MaryLouise@gmail.com (talk · contribs) for disruption i.e various scu, paedophile, wanker edits. Suggest listing them at checkuser page. Tim! 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

and AbdulRahim@gmail.com (talk · contribs) for good measure as blatant sock of MaryLousie@gmail.com Tim! 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• User:MaryLouise@gmail.com was already listed at RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Result was "possible". Since then, they made this edit, effectively confirming their real identity as Robert Sieger/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Demiurge 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User 204.56.7.1 / Reddi

I've blocked [56] user 204. as a Reddi incarnation violating the arbcomm 1/7R ban placed on Reddi. Pjacobi is also fairly convinced its Reddi [57]. But I'm noting it here because I think I ought to William M. Connolley 21:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Baskervilles Vandalism

While the vandals are still being dealt with at WP:AIV, I think that this may require a greater knowledge of the incident. On a boredom-influenced visit to the vandalism intervention page, I checked the contributions of some of those listed to make sure that any edit that was on top was not related vandalism. One vandal, 195.93.21.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) led me to a slew of other IPs that are doing the same sorts of edits.

• 195.93.21.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.93.21.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.93.21.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.93.21.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.93.21.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.93.21.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Which then lead me to the possible IP puppetmaster: Frombubblegumtosky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), mostly because his user page was editted by one of the IPs and contained the same Baskervilles information. I reverted all of the vandalism related to the users by checking the inclusions of Image:105452747 l.jpg into articles, such as Donation[58] and even New York[59]. While these are IP addresses used by anonymous AOL users, such rampant similar vandalism in a few hours is notable. I have listed the image for speedy deletion (and put the page on my watchlist), but I don't know how well that will work out if the puppetmaster creates a new account and uploads the image, again. Ryulong 22:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Raymond Cruise

Raymond Cruise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recreated variants of Category:Spanish-British (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Spanish-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) repeatedly and again most recently. He's not a new user, yet has still been warned last month by Syrthiss about removing CfD tags from categories. The folks at CfD have asked that somebody slap him on the wrist. Meanwhile, I'm cleaning out the category (again), and will {db G4} when I'm done.

--William Allen Simpson 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tort Reform - Editor calling for "war"

As you can imagine, the subject of 'tort reform' is very controversial - on Wikipedia as in the 'real' world.

Several of us are collaborating on this article. There is not an edit war. It is taking time to revamp the article, since we so disagree, but we are working together. However, someone named Jarod wrote outageous posts a number of times, and finally wrote this:

::'Sorry to interrupt '

.,,but this last exchange got my dander up again. Dali, listen up. You seem okay (basically sane, sober, clean-shaven, etc), but you're completely and totally nuts. Why are you even having a conversation with these beautiful, amazing, flawlessly reasoned people? After all, isn't it clear that the TTP, since it was contracted by insurers, is hopelessly biased (as opposed to trial attorneys and their consultants, who have no vested financial interest in tort reform whatsoever, and therefore are free to quote studies as they please?) A slice of advice, my friend - this arguement is completely absurd. With a straight face, they are arguing that civil trial lawyers and their backers don't have any financial interest in enforcing strict caps on punitive damages and contingent fees, then in the next breath, say that insurers and their countless minions do. Ga-huhhh??? (Actually I don't know if they have a straight face. They may be giggling psychotically. In a bathtub full of tobacco money.)

The point is, at least one has already admitted to being a trial lawyer, and therefore probably has more money then 6 rooms full of me and you. She argues for a living, and will argue, inanely and illogically, forever. Her condescension is emblematic of why we need tort reform. Trial lawyers have forgotten that all citizens in a free society create law. They just practice it. So stop being so sycophantic and start kicking some tail, buddy. A mildy special third grader could dissect the nonsense about "factoring in the value of life" (of course its an editorial comment Molly - are you even SERIOUS?)

Now watch this magic trick. I'm serious watch... In about forty-five seconds, what I just wrote is going to be interrupted at least four times, and will include howling appeals to censor me, claims that I'm a Republican operative or a child and at least one sentence with a subtext of I know much more about everything than you. It's their livelihood their fighting for. I get it - even respect it - but that respect is not mutual my friend. This is why you must stop sitting on the fence and fight. Love, Jarod--65.135.43.33 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a call for fighting and warring, and anything but civil (not to mention atrributing things to me or Gfwesq that nobody said). I fear that this is a troll, or a vandal that will completely undo any attempts at collaboration.jgwlaw 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tort_reform

Personally, I don't mind being called "nuts", but I do have a sickening feeling when some stranger (especially one who can't even spell "argument") addresses me as "my friend" or "buddy". So I'd agree, this looks bad. Well, hang on a little and see whether this really is a vandal who will completely undo any attempt at collaboration. In the meantime, perhaps the best thing to do is just to ignore the provocation: as long as you think he might be a troll, don't feed him. -- Hoary 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks, pt 2

Recently, User:JzG accused me of a personal attack. I thought I'd point out this earlier posting by JzG that I think demonstrates that the hostility goes both ways. I had called JzG closed-minded and trigger happy (which I regret), but is calling me "obsessive" any better? Not that this in any way excuses my actions, but I just wanted to point out that there have been transgressions on both sides of this debate. A Transportation Enthusiast 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call JzG's comments a personal attack, but I do agree the comment could have been toned down. joturner 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also call them fifteen days old. Even the dispute in question was archived. I'm not clear why this is being brought up now. I understand wanting to defend your reputation in the Wikisphere, but slinging more mud after the discussion has essentially ended won't help you with that. I'd respectfully suggest it's time to try to put this behind you. JDoorjam Talk 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bring it up before because I didn't see it until today; JzG archived it just 30 minutes later. I only found out about it because of this blog entry by Avidor, which links to the archive page containing the attack (also linked here, with the quote). And, why is reporting this considered "slinging mud"? I just don't understand it: JzG reports an attack here, I get a stern warning. I report an attack, and I'm accused of mudslinging. Why is that? Isn't this where you're supposed to report stuff like this? A Transportation Enthusiast 05:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the quotation was from over two weeks ago and the discussion here ended three days ago. There's a time factor here. The point of this board is to spot ongoing incidents so that they can be dealt with and the project of writing an encyclopedia can commence. If JzG posted a fifteen-day-old link to you saying you were going to climb the Reichstag while dressed like Spider-Man, I'd probably wonder why he was bringing up an old issue. Hypothetically, if in the future he says not-nice things to you, I'd suggest you ask him about it on his talk page, and if he is still rude to you, then at that point, bringing it here would be more warranted. My apologies for using the term "mudslinging"; it was poorly chosen. Again, my comments are about the timing, and not the content, of your grievance here. JDoorjam Talk 06:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• General question for those on ANI regarding this type of a report. Is WP:PAIN only meant for "active" cases of personal attacking or does this type of a report fall under its auspices as well? Netscott 07:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon + Persians

User 24.211.192.250 has been systematically changing Persian to something else. I don't know what is right on all of these issues but on Rumi, at least, it does go against what has been in the article without discussion. I almost blocked the user but... I figured I'd place it here. If another admin wants to deal with it, good. Or, I deal with it later if someone adds onto my talk page... but, is a ban in order? and should they all be reverted? gren グレン 04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How easy it has to claim that somebody "has been systematically changing Persian to something else". Please check my contribution history. I've edited the articles which the above editor/admin considers as Persian only once. The above post also reflects the obsession of some editors to label or insert Persian into as many articles as possible [60], [61], which is quite problematic, especially when one edits articles with such nationalistic views that creates biases. 24.211.192.250 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proven sock of banned editor

Thunderbird15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been proven by RFCU to be a sock of the blocked User:Lightbringer (see report on WP:LTA) who is banned by ArbCom. Could we please have Thunderbird15 blocked?

Thank you. WegianWarrior 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Why can't they be immediately blocked by whoever confirms the connection? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the various discussions I've seen, the RFCU privileged users have no time to go around taking action, it's up to the requester to get the necessary action taken. Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is that he gets blocked. Thanks again :) WegianWarrior 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting libellous revisions

What is the correct procedure for requesting deletion of libellous revisions? There are some unsubstatiated comments in Michael Jackson (Anglican bishop) which led an anon IP to tag the whole article for speedy deletion. That's obviously not necessary here, so I removed the db tag, but I don't quite know how to get the few revisions deleted. Cheers --Pak21 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, an admin can delete the lot of it and then only restore the non-libellous edits. Can you provide diffs to said problem edits? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure: [62] [63] [64]. Cheers --Pak21 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • One more that I missed originally: [65]. Apologies for making people do this twice. Cheers --Pak21 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to alert us. --mboverload@ 06:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Aditya.pidaparthy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone look at this user's talk page and his contribs? He has lots of images uploaded with faulty copyrights along with a whole mess of moves. I can't tell if this is a vandal or just a very confused new user. Could someone take a look? --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I just spent well over an hour undoing the mess this guy caused. He caused 3 double redirects and 2 redirects that didn't need to be redirects. Plus he created a duplicate article and 2 copyvios. Goodness. I warned him on his talk page. Need to watch his edits for awhile. Nothing worse than people doing moves that don't know how to do them properly. Blech. --Woohookitty^(meow) 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history here: [66]--he's in a revert war with Tawkerbot. · rodii · 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for the revert war. Maybe someone could leave a message on his talk page about his behavior.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert war with Tawkerbot? Uh, who's going to win there???? LOL! That's hilarious... that person has to be new and confused... seriously. Netscott 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd go with Netscott here. I think he's just new. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I ended his block early. He probably should've been warned before the 3RR rule was invoked. I highly doubt he knew what it was. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

eh.. ?

R. S. Shaw (talk · contribs), could someone please fix these pagemoves?--71.247.107.238 15:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? --InShaneee 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They make the page completly un-usable, look at what was done to the WP:RD/s and tell me you wouldn't be horrified if the same thing was done to AN/i--71.247.107.238 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's all still working for me. Are you talking about old sections being archived? Please be a bit more specific about what you think is wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

This single purpose vandal account needs to be blocked indefinitely. This account's sole purpose was to repeatedly remove wikilinks and blank images related to one article. Royboycrashfan (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours but this needs to be permanent. This user was vandalizing WP:AIV as well. Thanks. Netscott 19:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's removings pics and links to Muhammad cartoon controversy... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm about 99% sure that recently permanently blocked user Dangling_pointer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same individual from the pattern of vandalism (WP:AIV, etc.). Netscott 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm: That's censoring! Iolakana|^T 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with User:RandomCritic

User RandomCritic has posted a request for arbitration with respect to his claims that I have harassed him and revealed personal information about him. He has failed to substantiate these allegations in a convincing manner and I note that his request for arbitration looks as though it will be rejected. I would therefore like to bring the following selection of recent comments made by user RandomCritic to administrator attention on account of their incivility, defamatory nature and other infringments of Wikipedia policy. (I am sorry I have to quote all these verbatim as I am not sure how to make short-cut links to them.)

Posted to Talk:Anatta: With reference to another user:

"I have no doubt and no hesitation in saying that you are completely unqualified as a Pali translator". RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and

"And you advertise yourself as a Pali scholar? Or any sort of scholar?" RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and

"You consistently use bad translations, because you don't know enough Pali to tell a good translation from a bad. ...... You could try learning Pali if you don't want to face continued embarrassment." [RandomCritic] 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and

"I have no doubt and no hesitation in saying that you are completely unqualified as a Pali translator. There is a special word for someone who claims qualifications he utterly lacks, but I believe it would be impolitic of me to use it here". RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, with reference to myself:

"If you do not know Pali, then you had no grounds for endorsing his "translations", and my linguistic explanations will make no sense to you. I can only suggest that you study the language for yourself, in that case .... I appreciate your offer to rewrite the page, however, I have concerns about your ability to present a neutral point of view, as I understand you are not a disinterested party. I don't think there is any reason for you to rush". RandomCritic 21:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and

"Hodge: I cannot and do not estimate any person based on their own claims of their talents or abilities: only by what they themselves exhibit and what I can myself double-check. .... But I ask you, assuming some small dose of knowledge on your part" RandomCritic 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally in the Talk:Buddhism page, Vapour claims, sometime prior to the 19th June 2006:

"Dr Tony Page, aka TonyMPNS run a website in corraboration with Stephen Hodge".

To which user TonyMPNS replied later that day,

"Stephen Hodge does not run the "Nirvana Sutra" website with me - I do."

And I also replied,

"Of course, I know Dr Page personally, value his friendship and have produced translations for him on a professional, contractual basis, that he has reproduced on his website -- a website in which I have no direct involvement whatsoever." Stephen Hodge 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, RandomCritic persists in claiming in a posting to user Vapour's UserTalk, with the intention of implying that there is some form of cabal in play, that:

"both Page and Hodge are co-creators of the Parinirvana Sutra site listed in the External Links list. " RandomCritic 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I then posted a message to this RandomCritic's UserTalk page, beginning:

You said in a message to User Vapour's talk page, that "both Page and Hodge are co-creators of the Parinirvana Sutra site". I am categorically not a co-creator and I have nothing whatsoever to do with it, beyond the fact that Dr Page uses material he has paid me to translate for him. Would you please retract that statement ?"

I followed, unwisely in retrospect, this with what was intended as a humourous riposte, alluding to a certain user of a children's art website which I never assumed or believed was actually this user RandomCritic, who has indeed also subsequently confirmed is not connected with he/she/it.

However, I received this message on my Usertalk from RandomCritic:

I pity whatever poor person you have me confused with when you start sending her (or him) hatemail. You really don't have it together, Hodge. I recommend a vacation." RandomCritic 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is repeated by implication is RandomCritic's request for arbitration, with absolutely no corroborative or substantiating evidence:

I am concerned that User:Stephen Hodge's message may lead, or may have already led, to harassment of the person he has incorrectly identified as me. RandomCritic 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The above two sets of remarks are vicious, defamatory and obviously more serious in nature than any supposed actions on my part with respect to RandomCritic, given that my real-life identity is transparent.

I request that RandomCritic be urged to withdraw these statements and apologize.--Stephen Hodge 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the section at the top of this page which says Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes. ? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been having a dispute lately...

About a week ago or so, I had a debate with User:Wiarthurhu about whether the Eagle Premier was the successor to the AMC Matador. He got angry with me and claimed that I was intentionally removing information, when in fact I was removing his claims because they were unsourced. I told him to show his sources, and the sources he gave didn't say anything about his claims. I then brought the issue up to WikiProject:Automobiles, where the debate was ended in my favor. During the dispute, however, he used two IP addresses to revert my changes and used one of them to attack me, calling me a "menace" and a "nuisance". He also accused me and User:Bravada of vandalism on the AMC Eagle page, when we had no such intent. Recently, he left me some nasty comments on my talk page, which I removed, but he still won't back down on personally attacking me. He also claims that I "damaged" the AMC Matador article after I performed some requested cleanup work from User:SteveBaker.

The same user was also involved in a dispute with User:Mmx1 about the F-14 Tomcat article, in which Wiathurhu exhibted similar behavior. He's also used his own user page and the requests for meditation board to launch personal attacks against Mmx1. Me and Mmx1 have tried reporting him to Wikiquette alerts, but we have not gotten a response yet. Here are the related links to my dispute: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]

--ApolloBoy 22:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples of the user's behavior in my dispute with him in the F-14 matter:

• rewriting a request for mediation (which we both agreed to) from a neutral content dispute resolution into an attack on me and my qualifications [75]

and despite participating (even if in bad faith) in a request of mediation, continuing to edit the page in dispute Special:Contributions/Wiarthurhu.

• repeatedly calling into question my qualifications including insinuated personal attacks on my academic qualifications and intelligence[76]

As far as I know, I have no reason to believe that you have even a bachelors degree, ever taken a course in writing or logic, ever wrote a computer program, or even held a job, let alone an IQ over 100, purchased, borrowed, browsed or even read a single book, magazine, watched any media or even visited an aviation museum exhibit on the F-14.

• using the Wikipedia article as a soapbox for content disputes: [77]
• and behaving in a generally antagonistic manner:

""I dare you to revert that, unless you believe you are a more reliable source than Grumman's original test pilot"

• dared editors to revert him[78]
• proclaiming "VICTORY"[79]
• treating mediation like a fight: "bring it on, baby" [80]
• defining a mediation in terms of win/loss for either side [81]

--Mmx1 23:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with User:70.81.168.141

This user is continually adding unnecessary information to the lead of the Nelly Furtado article. [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] He/she refuses to follow WP:LEAD and is adding statements such as "it still managed to hit platinum in 2 countries and gold in over 5 other countries, including USA, UK and The Netherlands" to the lead. Detailed sentences about what countries a musician's second album was certified Gold and Platinum definitely do not belong in an article's lead. This article was recently promoted to Good Article status and this user is continually making unconstructive edits. When approached at his/her talk page, they refuse to rationally discuss the issue and instead swear and state that they can and will do whatever they want (in violation of WP:OWN). "I want it like that and i will continously change it! good bye." [87] and "I WILL DO WHAT I WANT ! its a freee site good bye!" [88]. On the Nelly Furtado talk page, he/she states "quit changing the damn article! I want it like that i think its FINE! leave it alone!!!!!" [89] and "DO NOT CHANGE IT GOD DAMMIT!" [90]. The user is also in violation of the 3RR rule, which I must admit I am also in violation of, as I am trying to remove the unconstructive/fancruft-ish edits the user continually makes but refuses to discuss. --Musicpvm 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"David Jason Silver" AKA Harvardlaw/69.10.123.4

• 69.10.123.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Harvardlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, who is apparently named "David Jason Silver", has decided that Wikipedia exists for his self-promotion. For the past month he's been writing articles about himself and his company, and inserting references to himself into many other articles, always inappropriately and sometimes fraudulently. He has been warned about this many times, but has barely acknowledged any warnings or used the talk pages. He has recreated deleted articles, removed Afd tags, engaged in repeated copyvios/plagiarism, and other inappropriate behavior. Each account has been blocked once for brief periods. I propose that the next time he inserts a self-reference, a copyvio, or other previously-warned behaviors, he get a one-week block on both accounts. Any thoughts? -Will Beback 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: His "next-time" has already occured: [91]. -Will Beback 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to give the user a 3RR block for edits to Jessica Simpson, already blocked. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

24.137.173.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) He is also using this IP, same pattern of behavior, same articles. --Nobunaga24 01:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

After several more bad edits I blocked the two main accounts. If he uses 24.137.173.67 we can block that too. -Will Beback 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this guy's edits are bordering on the bizarre. At one point, in an article now deleted, he had listed the full name of his 16 year old daughter (not something I would do if I had a 16 year old daughter), and his home address. Not to mention the self-glorifying nature of the edits - he refers to himself as a "war hero" (he was a sailor in peace time on a ship off the Balkans - not exactly in the heat of battle, a "land baron" and "business magnate," a "famous amateur wrestler," a "business partner of Donald Trump," and a "future presidential candidate." Thanks to supplying us with his full name and address, I found out he has a weird trademark infringement lawsuit with Motorola, and equally bizarre "blog" and homepage [92], and has refered to himself as a "war hero" on numerous forums [93] (just one example). I'm starting to wonder what is going on - is this a delusional individual with aspirations of glory but without the, *ahem*, social skills or intellect to achieve it, or is it someone else intentionally smearing David Silver or trying to make him look foolish? --Nobunaga24 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"At one point, in an article now deleted, he had listed the full name of his 16 year old daughter (not something I would do if I had a 16 year old daughter), and his home address." Oversight the revision, indefinite block the guy. No quarter for privio. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - the girl's name is still in the revision history of one of the articles Harvardlaw revised (if you need the link, I can supply it). Is there a way to remove that since she is a legal minor, and I would suppose not aware that here full legal name was listed for everyone to see?--Nobunaga24 04:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-05/Oversight. Go there, find someone currently editing on the list, and drop them a message. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Giving the name of the daughter sounds like a hostile act, but, then again, I have certainly known some people as ... desperate? delusional? ... as these edits. (I had years of being called "Fake Christian scum" by Steve Winter.) We really need that out, though. If the person is nutty, he may not realize the effects of the history. If it's an attacker, we should protect the victim. Geogre 13:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Wilson apparently evading block

Due to similar writing styles, similarly hostile/above-the-rules attitudes, timing of edits, overlapping edits on Talk:Kris Weston, and similar edits on various other articles, I am fairly well convinced that B G Wilson and Sky-surfer are sockpuppets of Brian G. Wilson (interesting discussion page there), who was blocked on June 19 for legal threats, personal attacks, and threats to 'destroy Wikipedia', and whose dubious vanity article claiming royal kinship was deleted on June 27. I'd just like it to be noted that while his rants have toned down, he is using these other accounts to evade the block. It's not clear to me whether that's a violation of policy, per se.—mjb 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon 8

I don't want to start a wheel war, especially since I'm not really around that much anymore, but am I the only one troubled by Malo's deletion of eon8 after he was the one who started the AfD? This is a site that's been linked to from lots of places, and been discussed all over the internet. The page was written in NPOV and acouple of my friends on myspace even referred to wikipedia's link on it. Thousands of people are curious to what this is. But the more important part is, the AfD was improperly closed. Thoughts? Redwolf24 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Eon8. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same. There was no consensus in the AfD to delete, even discounting new editors' comments. Kimchi.sg 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we need a sysop to reinstate this article, and pronto. The situation at eon8 (the eon8 experiment having drawn the attention of the DHS and CIA, specifically) is the first reason I've had to contribute outside of Wikipedia userspace in almost a year. Last I checked, defaulting your own VfD's to any decision was a "no-no" here. That there's no consensus on how to handle eon8 goes without saying right now, and at the very least, the eon8 article should resume regular editing while a new VfD is conducted. Shem^(talk) 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Shem, I thought you were sysop. Either way, restored. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hell naw. I'd only started the Texan collaboration, a few other things, but never bothered putting up with RfA's when they were offered on IRC. Dicked around in too many political articles, I reckon. You can still check my userpage's history for the disappearing act, though. Shem^(talk) 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (Oh yeah, some people're real pissy about guys who drink and edit.)

Well, new afd here. I protected it from anons and new editors who messed up the last AfD. This should be closed round July 6th. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this what deletion review is for? And did anyone tell Malo he was being discussed here? · rodii · 14:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Salman01 block review

Salman01 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has unilaterally engaged in moving many pages with titles from "bint" to "binte" because that is what he calls the proper spelling. Britannica uses "bint" for Fatima and other scholarly sources. For instance google "Salma bint Umays" vs, "Salma binte Umays". 0 hits vs. 137. My point is, even if he is right it's not a settled matter. It was all done in good faith I believed and I did warn him. He deleted my comments and then posted a response claiming he was right. He subsequently removed all of the pages that I had taken the effort to revert. I blocked him for 24 hours and I want this block reviewed. I don't really think of myself as involved since I don't care if it's bint or binte since I don't know which is proper but unilaterally moving so many pages without discussing which is proper and then ignoring requests for him to seek consensus strikes me as disruption. (If my block was unjustified please say so.)

On anotehr note the user pastes large chunks of texts from other sites and his response to me says it's okay because other sites paste chunks of Wikipedia. I am not sure if he is saying that Wikipedia was the original source for the other articles online or what... but, in any case they aren't neutral and add nothing. He has also uploaded images with {{book cover}} that clearly aren't book covers. I just want to know how admins think I should procede with this... block for longer if he continues? undo the block now? revert all of the bint -> binte? gren グレン 06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. As for other sites copying content that he wrote, that is unlikely if it was discovered quickly. If I understand correctly and assuming the potential copyvio was found throught Google, Wikipedia's database dump has to be updated to include the edit, then the site has to update their copy of Wikipedia and then they have to wait for Google to come around and index their site again. Depending how frequently we update our database (it has not been updated since mid-May) and when Google last indexed their site (and whether it is one of the sites they index frequently or not), it might take several days or up to several months for this to happen. -- Kjkolb 11:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Copying large blocks of text from other web sites isn't acceptable; if he's had that explained to him and continues to do it, yeah, he should be blocked for it. Similarly, if he's using the wrong tags on uploaded images, especially clearly copyrighted ones, he needs to have the policy explained and potentially be blocked. I would revert all the bint/binte changes and encourage him to start a discussion on a relevant page or relevant pages to try to build clear consensus for the moves. JDoorjam Talk 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have responded at all to my requests that he not do what he is doing and again erased my comments from his talk page (which, isn't exactly a good sign that he will listen). If he makes the changes again without discussion I am going to give him a week block. gren グレン 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ackoz blocked

I have blocked User:Ackoz for 3 days for personal attacks and offensive behaviour (mocking users' IQs) on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Trampikey, and for disruptive behaviour in starting an RfC on a completely unrelated administrator whose only involvement was to place warnings for the above behaviour on his/her user page (which this user promptly removed). I have advised this user of ways he can seek to have this block overturned, and if another administrator feels that this block should be overturned, I will respect that. - Mark 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He needed to be in the time out corner, and 3 days is probably good. I endorse the block, although I do think this was a peevish person stamping his foot and might have been neutralized by ignoring. A short block is at least as valid an approach though. (I hate it when people try to be clever and just miss. The belly flop they make is much more noticeable than someone just jumping feet first into the pool.) Geogre 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing Vandalism warning?

Is it possible to remove a vandalism warning from my account - I'll be honest it irks me to know that people with vandal proof will see that I have a warning for what I consider 1)acting in good faith and 2) in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

I removed a Vandalproof logo from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abdelkweli . This was after it came to my attention that his page contained mainly fictional awards and seemed to be copied wholesale from another user. I left a message on his userpage asking if he required assistance setting up his userpage and also suggesting that he removed both the Vandalproof logo and one that said he had 2,500 edits (he had about 100 mostly to his own userpage). After no response I then removed the vandalproof logo with a clear edit reason to explain why. In return he placed a vandalism warning on my userpage. As I mentioned I feel I acted both in good faith and inline with Wikipedia guidance. --Charlesknight 09:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer is "of course," at least from my point of view. If you had been accused of an article vandalism, the matter would need to rest for longer. Since it's a questionable author's questionable page that you changed, it seems kosher to me to remove the warning. New and bad users like to use the word "vandal," and this one used the template. No difference. (At the same time, I did see, on your talk page, some (inadvertent, I hope?) overly tight vandal locks on some pages. I assume that you're living and learning and not intentionally locking down pages. (Syd could have played both, of course.) Geogre 13:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - in getting the hang of vandalproof I have been a bit on the tight side - in that incident, I want straight to the user's page and explained that I HAD been overly tight and that he should re-write the text as he felt fit (I also left a welcome and suggested that he got a user-id because it would make future conversation easier). --Charlesknight 13:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults

Can somebody look into Zer0faults (talk · contribs) actions, he is blindly reverting,13:54, July 1, 2006[94] 13:25, July 1, 2006[95] 13:08, July 1, 2006[96] 12:52, June 30, 2006[97][98] refuses to discuss[99] or read the articles that supports the edit he objects to (unitary executive, signing statement, unlawful combatant, extraordinary rendition) and he also makes incorrect edit summaries: claiming the rv is because there is no evidence but in fact he refuses to read the evidence. He removes comment on his odd behaviour from his talk page with rather uncivil edit summary.[100][101][102] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason you didnt add this comment in your list, the first comment you made on my page "The fact you fail to read them but still claim UET is not being used proves you are only being a dick." --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has been asked to provide some proof of his claim that, The Bush administration uses Unitary Executive Theory to justify Black Sites, Extraordinary Rendition etc. He refuses to do this. User:WGee has asked that all additions be fully sourced, I have begun compiling sources for the existing content and have asked Nescio to provide sources for his additions, he refuses and puts the following on my talk page [103] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

AGF violation "All you need is in the articles and references, why do you refuse to read it if not out of POV pushing." [104] After asking this user to provide a source. I do not see why they feel everyone should fetch sources for the content they add. Furthermore the Unitary Executive Theory is not appropriate for the template much like Guantanamo Bay. The templates for Cold War and WW2 do not list places and law theories, they list events. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You can further see the mess they have created on the talk page. First they challenged the foundation of everything in the template. When given reasons, they in a violation of WP:POINT broadly attempted to rework the entire page, changing events to actions so they can list everything they feel belongs in the template without discussing with anyone. I started a poll to see if anyone supported this, only he voted in support, myself and another user opposed. He has since been attempting to put it into the template anyway. The template listed only events and leaders. He feels every action taken, every law that is similar, every place etc should be included. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove my comments from this page. Admins decide what is not appropriate. You want to bring it here, then they should look at everything you did on the page, the whole issue you created, supporting the deletion, [105] then in that failing attempting to bloat it and start conflicts. Direct violation of WP:POINT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You have removed my comments twice now from an official Wikipedia page, please cease your censorship actions. [106] [107]. And I am being accused of removing comments? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved comment to relevant talk page, this is not the place. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

How is referring to the articles and their references not providing evidence? Clearly what this user wants is that I go to these articles copyedit the txt and refernces and place it on the talk page. However, he is old and wise enough to do that himself. His elaborate writings prove he is capable of reading himself and does not need me to copyedit the relevant text. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask that the enthousiastic and prolific writer keeps his requisaitor limited to the relevant talk page. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrator intervention. This is an ongoing content dispute and personal conflict requiring mediation, patience, and hot tea. In any case, the two of you simply yelling at each other does not need admin attention. JDoorjam Talk 16:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should write a sitcom about you two (Nescio and Zer0faults). You remind me of Felix and Oscar, though I'm not saying which is which. KWH 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to be Oscar. Sorry Nescio seems like you are Felix. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kven revisited

I thought the Kven editor had been blocked indefinitely, but apparently he has not and is lately editing as WhatHaveWeHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hjalmar Berg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (new additions to the several dozen of usernames he has used before). If the phrase "exhausting the community's patience" is supposed to have any meaning, I see no reason not to ban this user or at least block him indefinitely. Tupsharru 15:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond

Could someone take a look at Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 130.94.134.166 (talk · contribs), and 84.178.238.68 (talk · contribs)? JFAS was blocked for 3RR yesterday, and immediately, these two ips are reverting to JFAS's preferred versions on two different articles. I'm strongly biased so cannot give a proper analysis. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:InShaneee blocks against User:Fadix

While I know that another cases involving InShaneee has been brought here recently [108], I want some Admins to take a look at this one, the Armenian Genocide article talk page(and it is only a matter of time that the article will) is back to its spammed state after my announce of departure, which forced me to return. User:Neurobio is already calling to an 'invasion' of the genocide page using my departure. First by warning a user who is under probation, a probation which includes that article. [109], then contacting User:Lutherian [110] asking the removal of a sourced information.

I request my talk page materials be undeleted and Administrators look over the rational behind InShaneee warnings for a block and finally the two blocks imposed against me by the same administrator.

The final warning for my first block was because for this edit [111], and then I was first blocked for 24 hours because of my answer of that warning by this [112].

For the second block (a block for 3 days), I recieved the warning after another user, Grandmaster, with who I was having a heated debate reported me because he was called POV pusher, so InShaneee warned me for a block [113] which infuriated me and promped my answer. [114], as a result, InShaneee blocked me for 3 days. [115]. Another administrator has found the rational behind the block shaky [116] (I was not blocked for 36 hours but 3 days). InShaneee answered that the rational was that I made threats of more. [117]. Which is not true as I have clarified in my update note [118], a note which was later deleted by InShaneee [119] under the pretext that IRC materials should only be posted after an explicit permission by those involved even though he deleted just more than the quotes from the IRC. He also removed his name from my Farewell message [120], as well as warning again with a language which would have probably prompted a warning by himself had anyone used similar tone. [121].

Also, just a quick search in both Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan article (the articles in which I and Grandmaster interacted most) reveals that Grandmaster who reported me because of accusation of POV pushing, has in various occasion leveled similar accusations of POV pushing himself. [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], which I have never reported, since it is understandble that in some heated discussions few abrasive words are used and that any users are free to edit them rather than reporting even though as much to be blamed because the other happens to be someone with who you disagree. And also in an answer to InShaneee first blocking I reported similar edits made by Grandmaster. [131] which InShaneee ignored.

Also, while InShaneee has edited a content of my userpage under the pretext that to post such materials it takes consent, I wonder under which Wikipedia policies this goes. Because I have specifically maintained who made what statment, while InShaneee may have ground for his consent request, so does, I in my opinion, have the right clarifying what InShaneee had been saying about me in my back, which is simply untrue. Every members should be permitted to defend themselves against what they percieve as false charges, more importantly charges leveled on media's not directly available to the concerned, and if InShaneee had found my clarification not proper to be posted on a members talk page, InShaneee was a concerned party and should have in my opinion reported such behavior to another Administrator rather than deleting the entire sentence. Fad (ix) 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your block expired a week ago. Secondly, you already tried to bring this up on the mailing list as well as requesting an unblock, to which no one responded. Thirdly, what I removed consisted of an IRC chatlog and a personal attack. --InShaneee 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to report an incident, and there are no policies retricting me on the basis that it is an incident dating about a Week ago, you should stick to policies. As for the mailing list, as far as I am aware of, no administrator agreed to the block, the only who even pied attention to the cases disagreed with you. Also, going around the IRC and making up reasons for the Block isen't also the proper conduct of an Administrator. Neither deleting ones talk page content, where the member is answering to false charges. And no, what you removed was not only chat log, to the contrary, most were not. You mostly deleted things which I myself wrote answering to the charges which you leveled against me justifying the block, charges which both of us knew to be untrue. Also, the thing you call personal attack is an opinion posted in my talk page, it is neither a heatlist, neither anything of that sort. I severly question your ability to administer, and say it again, and this was about what I have said there. It is not like I am posting that in an articles namespace, neither in a talk page, but rather an answer. On the other hand, you have restricted me to edit for 72 hours, something which you should apologise for. Fad (ix) 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is for reporting incidents which require immediate administrator intervention, which this does not. --InShaneee 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So according to you, reporting an Administrator abuses does not require immediate administrator intervention but calling someone POV pusher does?

Unless the administrator is 'abusing their powers' at the moment, no. Otherwise, it's something for mediation or RfC. --InShaneee 18:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are. You just have given another warning where there was no warning content. [132] Fad (ix) 18:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a request, not a warning. And I'd consider comparing someone to a Neo-Nazi something that requires action. --InShaneee 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any comparaison of a particular user with neo-nazi. TAT has texts specifically saying that Armenians are the lowest form of life. What do you expect an Armenian to answer. Eupator has answered without attacking any members, and you posted that message in his talk page. Stop distributing such warnings. Fad (ix) 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A little note to Fadix from the top of this page, Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes.. You might want to adjust your commentary accordingly. Netscott 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I just bolded what is most important. Fad (ix) 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The original block looks like it was warranted to me; from what I can see, InShaneee never edited your user page so I'm not clear what you're talking about (unless you're referring to your talk page); and the most recent "abuse" you've reported appears to be InShaneee telling you not to violate Godwin's Law because it's rude, which seems sensible to me. This thread doesn't seem to indicate there's an incident requiring administrator intervention. JDoorjam Talk 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you haven't looked at the cases the same way as you have looked at what I was talking about (neo-nazi). InShaneee 'warning' about neo-nazi was to Eupator and not to me. As for your opinion concerning the original block, it is much clear that blocks on personal attacks are justified in clear cases of personal attack, not just some accusation of POV edits or telling someone that he was not reading what you were writting. InShanee clearly doesn't make the distinction between empty slanders and some abrasive words in a heated discussion.Also, you haven't said anything about the second block. Fad (ix) 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fadix that the blocks that was imposed on him by InShaneee might have been a bit harsh, eventhough he should indeed mind what he is saying, even when things get "hot" in discussions regarding controversial topics. It's very important always to be as polite as possible. I also agree that it's not nice that inaccurate reasons for blocking Fadix was mentioned on IRC, and I understand that Fadix is pretty upset about this. However, nothing good or constructive will come out of pursuing these issue anymore. As mentioned the block ended more than a week ago, and the best thing I believe would be for Fadix if he would just forget about the whole thing, and get back working on the articles where I and many other editors know that he makes a lot of much needed, very important and valuable contributions. Another thing is that I also believe it would help the situation if InShaneee would let other admins deal with any future issues involving Fadix. -- Karl Meier 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr Mark Mayall

I would like to ask that this article's deletion is carefully reviewed by parties independent of those who nominated and deleted it or voted for its deletion. 213.122.71.45 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was properly deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Mayall. If our anonymous interlocutor wishes it undeleted he should follow the undeletion request process. Homey 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Swerling

I would like to ask that this article's deletion is carefully reviewed by parties independent of those who nominated and deleted it or voted for its deletion. 213.122.71.45 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted through proper process. See WP:DRV if you wish to contest it. --InShaneee 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rms125a back again

Indefinitely blocked user Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as Stapletonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and reverting the edits of his "enemies"/vandalizing pages [133]. See [134] for a long list of the wikistalking edits carried out by another of his anonymous IP addresses earlier today. Can an admin block urgently? Demiurge 22:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rms 25a back again(again)

Seems this guy is up to his old tricks again. This time without hair.John Pairseenthbaeu 23:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Anybody that makes edits like these[135] does not deserve a second chance after been banned indefinitely. Definitely rms - one of his old favs. Djegan 23:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not sure what to use on him either. Permblock, warnings, a stern email, a plea to other administrators, or just ignore himJohn Pairseenthbaeu 00:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU

I have no experience interacting with AlexPU (talk · contribs), other than running into him today following the lifting of his one-month ban. [136] He has been making disruptive comments in his edit summaries on Russia [137] and personal attacks in a TfD discussion. An admin should at least give him a warning, reminding him of the minimum norms of civility on this site. 172 | Talk 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, AlexPU insulting everybody... Yes, he just got back from a block (3/4 of it actually, since Alex Bakharev unblocked him if AlexPU would edit articles and not engage in personal attacks - I'll let the diffs speak themselves to judge if it's the case)

Here is a sample of his vocabulary since he came back:

• Telling a user to "get lost of his talk page" [138]
• Here, he suggests to de-sysop all admins voting keep on a TFD vote : [139]
• Here, he's attacking Russian wikipedians [140]
• Talking about "bullshit blanking" : [141]

And it's just a sample... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Elliskev

this guy seems to have a history of uncivility, and also answered quite uncivily on my talk page about a question in the abortion article, calling me a "racist" and a "moron" about a query that i very honestly, politely, and curiously presented. Joeyramoney 00:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't even play around with these kinds of guys. You don't want to get sucked into thier games.Cowboy John Adamson. GGfather:Abraham Lincoln 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A history of incivility is cause for immediate dismissal from Wikipedia's archives.Philly CheeseDude 00:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly on the matter of incivility. I have a family with two boys6 mos. and 2 years, and you're damn right I teach them civility!Charlie Daddy 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To user:JoeyRamoney you are not a racist and a moron. All of us at Wikipedia are doing our part, yourself included. For this, I applaud you.Mr. Nice Guy Rides Again 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of Germany?

Don't you think this block is a bit long: "14:32, 30 June 2006 InShaneee blocked "84.190.0.0/17 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism through possible open IP)". It actually blocks T-Online, by wide margin the most popular internet provider in Germany, and seems to block larger parts of Germany. I already know of several trusted German wikipedians who are not able to edit on en: anymore. -- southgeist 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)