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

Visual archive cue: 121

Community ban on User:Hogeye

User:Hogeye was blocked for a month for disruption on anarchism related articles. Since then he has been consistently and almost on a daily basis (although with notable and lengthy lulls) been using open proxies to evade his block. Ideally I'd like to see a ban and indefinite block put in place, but I'd settle for something that we don't have to reset the block every couple of days :)

20:15, 7 July 2006, Sarge Baldy (Talk) blocked Hogeye (contribs) (expires 20:15, 7 August 2006) (Unblock) (resetting due to ban evasion)

See the category here. Note that most of these are not sockpuppets in the conventional sense, but just open proxies that are being used to circumvent his block. - FrancisTyers · 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent most of my time on wikipedia yesterday reverting Hogeye's sock edits at Anarchism, so I am fully supportive of this proposal. Their socks also reverted changes I made to other articles recently, including this page, making three personal attacks in the process: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. This user constantly evades blocks and edits disruptively, and it's about time they get banned permanently. The Ungovernable Force 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As the one who protected the Anarchism article for a month while trying to make Hogeye discuss his changes (before the first month-long block), I would not oppose it. --cesarb 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They have a new sock: User:Drowner.--The Ungovernable Force 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• <sarcasm>Oppose; useful method for finding more open proxies to block.</sarcasm> Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: They will still use open proxies even after they are banned permanently, so it won't keep you from finding more. The Ungovernable Force 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell sarcasm in type. It was funny though. The Ungovernable Force 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning User:haham hanuka

I removed part of this users userpage becuase,imho, it violated the guideline at Wikipedia:User page (Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia) ; please also have a look here. I consider a block. Any comments? Lectonar 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the translation (which I had been waiting for before taking further action on this), I strongly support the removal of the material. There's no need for a block at this time, but the user should definitely not re-add the material. -- SCZenz 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The content has just been deleted through a formal procedure and he readds as if the community wasn't here. He should be blocked, as he has done this many times before and he was warned about his disrespect for our community decisions many times before. gidonb 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the was deleted at his request, not because of the MfD—and he hoped that adding it to his user page instead would be a compromise. It's clear the community wants it gone, even from his user page, so that isn't acceptable. But at this time, it has been removed from his userpage by Lectonar and not-readded; as long as he doesn't restore the material anywhere, no further action is necessary. -- SCZenz 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SCZenz: a block isn't appropriate at this time. There is a difference between re-adding because he's in a fight and re-adding after he's gotten multiple sets of administrative eyes. In the former case, the slow-ish dispute resolution process would need to take place. In the latter case, it's sort of a different set of offenses that can justify a block more quickly. (No, I'm not lawyering. I'm suggesting that the user can misunderstand some things, but not others.) Geogre 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the page was deleted through a regular procedure with which he agreed. In the meantime he has been blocked for a week for serious trolling on other AfDs. gidonb 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson reverting Kitty May Ellis stuff

Wjhonson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Hi guys, as a result of this deletion review, I changed my closure of this AfD (and deleted "Kitty May Ellis") and removed all quotations of her works from various articles. Wjhonson is reverting my edits. Now, I've already warned the user about revert-warring, but since I don't want to get into this revert war myself without knowing whether I'm in the right, I thought I'd make a note here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A deletion review that was not consensus. My article was a professionally-writen, complete and thoroughly-cited biography. A few attackers kept stating over and over the sources weren't verifiable, which is incorrect. Every source I used for the statements is verifiable and previously published in a reliable source. The deletion *review* came to an incorrect conclusion and there is no reason I should be penalized for trying to expand, valid and useful content on wikipedia. All the sources I used were posted to the article, and the quality was far superior, in my opinion, to the majority of biographies on here. And again every source is verifiable, the attackers took no attempt to even try to verify my sources. Wjhonson 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now, for the first time, been given the opportunity to read the this deletion review. I go to bed with KEEP, I wake up and everything I worked on for the past week — every single quote, every reference to this very notable person has been wiped by Deathphoenix. The sources are on wikisource, a sister project, and have been accepted there as documents of historical interest. Aside from that, I have posted portions of those quotes to various genealogical and history boards for the various communities and names mentioned, and each has expressed great interest in this source. And yet, one of the remarks on the review is that this person is not notable. It's relatively hard to reconcile the two positions. One person, a descendent of Chief Joseph wrote with profuse thanks that there is yet another source on her ancestor. The mere fact that a person is not universally known, is not a sufficient reason for stating that person is not *notable*. The notability page I would add, states that a person is also notable if they *should* be more widely known. If nothing else, this person should pass on that criteria. Wjhonson 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have some experience with genealogy. What are the links at wikisource so I can look it over? Never mind. This belongs on Wjohnson's talk page and DRV. Thatcher131 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment User:Wjhonson's conduct, the DRV should either be properly closed (and the old version possibly userfied?) as the closing admin has reverted his prior decision, or the history be restored until the DRV has run its course. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The DRV has been closed in favor of deletion. Without getting into a debate about the merits of the deletion, in the interests of tidying up, I'd like to remove all the redlinks to the now-(re)deleted article. I'm afraid, however, that another edit war will ensue. Any advice would be appreciated. Katr67 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I unlinked references to Ellis mostly without deleting the text. If an article is developed that the community agrees is viable, the links can be restored. Hopefully this solves the above issue for now. Katr67 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The user has now reposted the article under Kittie May Ellis. Perhaps another AfD is called for. Katr67 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Absoluly incorrect. The article was reopened for further review, and then the deletion-request was closed *moribund*, no result. This is just more of you and your friends attempt to mischaracterize the situation. The article stays. Wjhonson 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD already started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittie May Ellis (second nomination). And I am no friend (or enemy) of Katr67, I don't know her (?) at all. I'll conduct further discussion at the AfD, if needed. Fram 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just state for the record that I am not a friend (nor enemy) of any of the other users who have expressed their opinions on the merits of the article under discussion. Katr67 20:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Any *new* review should either be based exclusively on new comments, or should take into account the many responders in the original AfD who voted to KEEP. And should not be done, in the middle of the night, in a few hours. The persons interested in the history of the Pacific Northwest in general are not awake at 3 in our morning to respond to attacks on our published history by people who have no idea what's going on, and who are boldly lied to by others in the response pool. Wjhonson 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with the result of this deletion again. I have recreated the page and I am requesting some sort of arbitration, I just don't know how to do that yet. Verifiability is not reliant on ease, only possibility. Notability is not reliant on google hits. So someone tell me how to accelerate this up to the next level. Thanks. Wjhonson 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. I have posted cogent rebuttal to the most salacious of claims Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Assume_good_faith, and I would appreciate comments on this meta-issue, What happens when editors who have not read a source, assume it is unreliable. Wjhonson 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz has protected my #redirect of "Kitty May Ellis" to "Kittie May Ellis". What possible resason could there be for this? Can someone please unprotect this page. Thank you. Wjhonson 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

I ask for unblock on User:Panarjedde. The indefinite blocking was decided by User:Llywrch, who told me to come here.--151.47.76.121 01:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let your original 24 hour block expire, don't create sockpuppets, and those sockpuppets won't get banned. There is no reason to unblock Panarjedde, you were only using it to get around your original block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I told him to go to Wikipedia:Changing username to change his username, because I placed an indefinite block on the user name he wanted to use. He wants to use a new user name because I put a 24-hour block on his original one, Panairjdde; an Admin there is welcome to perform the necessary acts to change matters if they felt I behaved unreasonably. (Although I advise anyone so inclined to research his history of behavior both before & after the block. I also told him not to petition Tony Sideway or David Gerard for help, because they aren't as nice as I am. My apologies if he has ignored my advice & contacted them.)

BTW, I had to block this IP address because it was used for edits to Wikipedia unrelated to the business of his original block. Why don't you stop digging your hole deeper? -- llywrch 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - Since he says he closed his "Panairjdde" account, I put an indef block on that one. He has also stated he is going to leave Wikipedia countless times -- yet keeps coming back. Any Admin who believes he will stay on Wikipedia -- & trusts him to make useful contributions -- is welcome to undo those blocks. But if you do this, I expect you to mentor this user (or find one for him) & assume responsibility for his actions. -- llywrch 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said countless times, User:Panairjdde account is closed. Nobody can logon & it is no longer "mine" or of anybody else (now also User:Panairjdde is blocked indefinitely). My account is User:Panarjedde, and is blocked indefinitely, not for 24 hours. Why are you blocking my account indefinitely? What is the reason?

Furhtemore, User:Llywrch blocked two accounts indefinitely. On what basis?--151.47.99.159 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you have also said several times that you are leaving Wikipedia, you obviously don't need two accounts. If you simply meant that you are closing one account, then it is clear that you did this only to avoid the block for disruption. Although I originally blocked the second account because it appeared you were misusing a sockpuppet, your language convinces me that the second possiblity -- that you are avoiding my block -- is more likely. The block follows the person, not the account. I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Wikipedia for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption -- convince another Admin to lift it.

Panairjdde, there's far more to life & the Internet than Wikipedia. Use this time & find out. -- llywrch 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Wikipedia for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption — If the penalty for "disruption" (and you have yet to show me where this disruption was, right?) is 24 hours long, why the block is indefinitely long?

convince another Admin to lift it. Yes, like I do not know that everywhere is written that and admin should be careful when unblocking other admins' blocks! This matter has been here for some days, yet it is still a matter between you and me.

And, please, please, stop this patronizing tone with me! altought I originally tought you were simply an over-zealous admin, your language convinces me that you actually enjoy your "power", exercising it here, maybe because...--151.47.83.98 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(delayed response) It's very simple: as Zoe wrote above, sit out for 24 hours, explicitly tell us which user name you are going to use, & as long as you behave you will not be blocked. -- llywrch 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: A new User:LimWRtacCHsua appeared yesterday, making edits to many of the same articles Panairjdde had, & the same edits. When I asked him directly whether he was Panairjdde, I failed to get a straight answer -- but LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case. I can put 2 & 2 together; account also blocked. The name id also suspicious, BTW. -- llywrch 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have problems: "LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case"?! You put on my talk page a link to all this matter, and I am oddly aware?! Next time you don't want people to learn something, don't show them!--151.47.115.171 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what kind of disruption happened here, but the blocking behaviour and explanation disturb me. Even though an indefinitely blocked user asks why the explicitly named account he wants to use is blocked and why indefinitely and he complains about the blocking admin and the fact that no other admin looks into the case he gets told by the same admin as before: "sit out for 24 hours, explicitly tell us which user name you are going to use, & as long as you behave you will not be blocked." And then you wonder why he comes back and has bad feelings? Socafan 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs):RfC

Is anybody here willing to help me fill a RfC agains JzG here? There are no pro-forma warnings on Wikipedia. There are warnings or no warnings. Pro-forma warnings are just a form of bullying. After I have proven, that the original reason for warning was removed even before the warning was placed, JzG is searching for new reasons (see his "it is still unacceptable.." comments) or calling the warning pro-forma. Now he is joking about the "cabal", disparaging my comments and complaints and clearly trying to irritate me with those comments. Azmoc 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You got a little warning. Lets order Global Thermonuclear War! --mboverload@ 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No way. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I got friggin BLOCKED for reasons that I thought were baseless. All I did was calmly ask for comment. Calm down. I know you feel wronged but in the end it's just a warning. --mboverload@ 13:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, if you got friggin BLOCKED for nothing, it is wrong. That's why I proposed the easy-gain-easy-lose adminship on the Village Pump. Azmoc 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you consider Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to be an entire collection of pro-forma warnings? I would... -- ChrisO 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this even appropriate on this page? You've already made your complaint, now you want to escalate to an Rfc and you're issuing a blanket invitation for someone to second you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard he punched a baby too. KWH 06:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this particular case, but the attitude to shrug off complaints about abuse of adminship with derogatory comments and mock about "the cabal" is something I know from JzG, too, and I think it is in no way helpful to resolve disputes. An admin should know better that special rights come with a special responsibility. Socafan 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Devonshire

Carrying this over from User talk:Theresa knott, during a routine checkuser of vandal-account creations (in order to discover and block the IP, halting the creations) I discovered that User:Conrad Devonshire has been creating malicious vandal usernames for some time now. A small listing of said usernames is listed on Theresa's talk page; a relevant, and particularly indicative, snippet is:

04:57 User talk:Gwernol (2 changes; Page history) [Conrad Devonshire (2×)]

m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Some usernames you might consider blocking...)

m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (Some usernames you might consider blocking...)

04:42 (User creation log) [Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!!; A erection lasting longer than four hours; FickenKont; Foot-long penis; Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong?; Vandalbot Alpha]

04:42 (cur; last) . . Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong? (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:40 (cur; last) . . Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!! (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:39 (cur; last) . . FickenKont (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:38 (cur; last) . . Foot-long penis (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:37 (cur; last) . . A erection lasting longer than four hours (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:36 (cur; last) . . Vandalbot Alpha (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)

04:34 User talk:Conrad Devonshire (diff; hist) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Brfx)

I reported the matter to the Arbitration Committee via thier private mailing list, in order to get a sanity check (though it's very obvious as checkuser results go) and for advice on how to proceed. I also requested that Conrad email me urgently; instead of doing so, he responded with a curt response that he did not pass out his email. Theresa made a similar request (as an Arbitrator) and was met repeatedly with a similar result, before being reluctantly provided with an address. His response, on her talk page, was less than satisfactory.

At this point, he's made it public, and the appropriate avenue to decide what to do is here. I count 18 usernames on three IPs (there are dozens more, those 18 were just handy); they are not, as he suggests, dopplegangers. Indeed, he warned one of them shortly after using it to vandalize: [5]. Sadly, this sort of thing is all to common; this is at least twice in the last week that I've come across otherwise legitimate contriubutors engaging in vandalism via sockpuppets.

Ideas on what to do with Conrad are greatly appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is he creating vandal accounts so he can revert it himself and look like a great vandal fighter? Is it all obvious or is some of it insidious? Thatcher131 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he won't do it again, now that he knows everyone else knows.....is it worth punishing him with a block for something did in the past and probably won't do again? I don't know what prentitive measures arbcom could do anyway.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, were these accounts created on his IP or while he was logged in? I thought you couldn't create an account while logged in.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about this... but a post on ANI is got to be rather punishing in and of itself given the content we're seeing. Conrad Devonshire'll likely never hear the end of this. (→Netscott) 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, one gets the impression that you might be obligated to do quite a bit of work corresponding to all of these sockpuppets. If that is indeed the case then if for no other reason that alone should merit a good long block. (→Netscott) 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My thought was along the same lines. While posting to ANI might be punishment enough (depending on how badly he wants to be seen as a good wikipedian) I would rather see probation at the very least. However, only a checkuser would have the ability to monitor his probation (Essjay, Mackensen, and the members of Arbcom). So I say it should be up to them. Is there a checkuser willing to vouch for him? Thatcher131 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Responding to a few things (I went to dinner and the thread exploded!):

• As much as you'd think it wouldn't happen, it's not uncommon to see someone vandalizing and then cleaning up thier own mess. I don't know if it's some kind of guilt, or if it is because they want to elevate thier public image, but it happens too frequently.
• He may or may not do it again; I guarantee if he does it again he'll do it in a way that is much harder to detect. Rarely does ignoring the problem cause it to go away; it just cases it to hide deeper beneath the surface.
• You can create accounts while logged in, but it causes them to be logged under your name, as in "User:A created User:B" rather than just "created User:B". If you log out before doing it, or do it in a separate browser, then it doesn't do that. This is not a case of "someone else was on the IP at the time"; dynamic IPs do sometimes change, but they don't switch to a vandal for twenty minutes and then back to you, as shown above.
• There is a reasonable amount of work that goes into this, but it's what I'm here to do. My concern is that further problems be prevented, as each one of these accounts takes admin time to block, often multiple admin's time as they all simultaneously block, and the time of others to tag the accounts. Additionally, it takes checkuser time, as at least one checkuser (me) is actively checking accounts from these types of sprees in order to block the IPs and prevent further damage.
• I've yet to see any response from him on the subject, and certainly no remorse. Indeed, he has been very uncooperative so far, and I don't forsee a change in that. As I indicated above, I think if he's learned anything, it's to be smarter about his sockpuppetry. I'm not willing to spend the next year checking up on him constantly, and I doubt any of the other checkers have the time.

Beyond seeing that no further damage is done to Wikipedia, I'd like to know the community's take on this, and what they feel should be done; as I've said, I find it all too often, and if the community is unconcerned, then I will just keep it to myself from now on and not waste my or other's time with public reports. Essjay (Talk) 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should happen to Conrad, but I'd like to voice that things like this definitely need to be reported. These actions are damaging to Wikipedia, take up Wikipedia resources, and consume administrator time. An ANI thread is the very least we can do, and whatever response is decided to be taken, hopefully actions like this will be greatly discouraged in the future. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is definitely disruptive behavior, and a fairly long block is warranted. Enough time, for instance, that Conrad is forced to take a break from WP and, if he chooses to become active again later, will perhaps reevaluate the point of doing so. His behavior is very at-odds with our goal of creating an encyclopedia here. Mangojuice^talk 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. how long is fairly long? pschemp | talk 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not less than 2 weeks or otherwise some amount per sock (like 4 hours) added up. (→Netscott) 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've alerted the user in question. We shouldn't assume that he'll find the thread, it's better to be frank with him and let him know.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ulp. I'm feeling a little uncomfortable about a remark of mine here: I start to think that WoW (and the like) and certain WP editors need each other as virus writers and virus "protection" merchants need each other. Which was written largely for CD's, er, benefit. He replied (I hope to the comment as a whole, and not merely this part): "I am beginning to see things your way." -- Hoary (mightily bored by vandals and trolls), 03:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Has he made any statement that this behavior will stop? He should in my opinion be blocked at least until he does so; certainly there is precedent for that -- for example the User:Wonderfool case from months and months ago. (Yes; such a promise is made under duress and may have little real value; but it's all we can do.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - I admit that it is true that I have been creating accounts. I am not going to play dumb or lie to you about it. I will explain, but not rationalise my reasons for doing so. One of my reasons is that which was mentioned, that it would give me an oppourtunity to show my willingness to fight vandalism by reporting them myself. Another is that I suffer from certain mental problems including schizophrenia. One symtom of my mental problems is that at times, certain thoughts which I find particularily inappropriate or unpleasant inter my mind and my mind cannot let go of them. By creating accounts with names that reflect these thoughts, it in a way has helped to isolate them from my mind. It is difficult for me to explain how this works, but doing so helped to relieve my mind of unpleasant thoughts. I also created accounts and/or made vandal edits in a few cases simply to see how efficiently Wikipedia would respond. But, as I said, I am not trying to rationalise what I have done. Though I mentioned having mental problems, I do have control over my own actions and could have found other ways to deal with my problems. And as for wanting to show my willingness to fight vandals, I should have done so by actually fighting vandals rather than inventing vandals to fight. I apologise for what I have done and promise to discontinue it immediately. Please note however that my contributions testify to my desire to be a respectable editor. I regret that I have perhaps permenantly damaged my reputation as a Wikipedia editor, but accept that I am to blame for it. I believe that I do deserve a block for this and shall take a break from editing whether I receive one or not.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was very big of Conrad to come clean with the above, and I commend him for that. It must be quite difficult to have all of this aired under the public eye of ANI. However, it's pretty clear that his actions were egregious, and a punitive block in the range of one week is very much in order. -- Samir धर्म 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Conrad for your explanation and apology. It shows maturity. Personally I feel that you do need a block but I will not apply it myself as I am an arbitrator and I have been acting as an arbitrator in this incident. I feel that if I block you, the rest of the community will be reluctant to disagree with me and i don't want that to happen. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week per the above, pending further consensus here. -- Samir धर्म 08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block.--MONGO 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Echoed. Conrad is taking a Wikibreak; this is a good idea. Something tells me that the embarrassment will be enough to ensure no repeat. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Except we don't do punative blocks, right? - brenneman 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron here. I have followed this case carefully and see no reason for a block in the circumstances pertaining now. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how our wikisociety functions. Would a block be preventative if in enforcing one other users will not engage in such behavior (or alternatively if they are currently engaged in similar behavior now, stop)? I understand the logic for no block... but this individual has made quite a bit of work that others are forced to deal with. This should be a citable example for what to do in the future. (→Netscott) 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's another excellent reason to not block--some people might be tempted to block in similar circumstances in future. --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you and Brenneman are correct. To a certain extent at this point whether this user is blocked or not may be immaterial as he's decided to not edit on his own for some time... and if he indeed abides by that then a block'd be redundant (if we're talking strictly about preventative in the sense of this one user). I think in a similar situation in the future Essjay or an ArbCom member should be inclined to just immediately block and note the reasoning in the block log and then proceed to inform the community of the back story and if given an explanation and promise not to continue that is on an equivalent level as Conrad Devonshire's, then subsequently lift the block. Essentially in my view some sort of an easily verifiable history (ie: block log note) should accompany such behavior, no? (→Netscott) 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I find creating multiple inappropriate usernames a blockable offense whether it's preventive or not. It's something explicitly forbidden policy and caused multiple people a lot of work. Oh yeah, don't forget to block the all the accounts except for the main one. If he can control himself now he's shown he can own up, I have no problem if he edits in a week's time. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  My approach to this is that I'd support a block if he presented an ongoing risk to the encyclopedia. While there might be an argument for blocking as a deterrent, this isn't compatible with our blocking policy. Moreover if we were seen to block someone who came clean and promised to stop, it would almost certainly deter other editors from coming clean about antisocial activities. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with the principles of Tony's reasoning (but I have no comments on the specific case at hand). Haukur 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think you can call this "coming clean". From Theresa's talk page I see first he claims it was a joke and dopplegangers, then insisting on not being treated as a villain until uncontrovertable evidence is provided. Only once shown he has been caught red-handed does he admit it and promise not to do it again. NoSeptember 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I think Conrad has resolved this quite well by taking a voluntary wikibreak. In the circumstances, I wouldn't object to an unblock with the annotation that the user is taking a short voluntary wikibreak in view of his bad faith actions. A block is also okay, but I think it's a little worrying in the circumstances where he has finally come completely clean. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. I reckon Tony's right. Is there any preventive action required? Sounds like there isn't. Is Conrad generally a problem editor? I'd say not, from an admittedly quick review of his contribs and Talk. Conrad has taken his punishment like a man and taken a voluntary Wikibreak; if he wants that to be enforced to avoid temptation then fine, otherwise it seems a bit - well, vindictive. Just zis Guy you know? 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am unblocking, based mostly on the range of opinions expressed in this thread (my gut feelings steer me to believe that punative blocks do have some utility). But when Tony and Aaron agree on something, it's probably a good rule of thumb that that something should be done. NoSeptember -- I agree the "coming clean" is unevaluatable at the least. Still, he'll pose just as much threat a week from now as now, so I don't believe the community agreeing to lift this one-week block is harmful. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that I've wasted my time a) checking up on the problem, b) sorting it out, c) notifying the Arbitration Committee, d) trying to resolve it with the user, e) reporting it here, and f) thinking anybody would care. There *is* a side to this besides "Oh poor Conrad, he's been naughty but we shouldn't hold it against him": There's the dozens of administrators and other RC patrolers that have been affected, there are the users who have been impersonated and/or attacked in these usernames, and there is the time of the Arbitration Committee any myself that has been wasted dealing with this. I think NoSeptember hit it on the head: He *didn't* come clean until he was *forced* to, and displayed defiance right up until he posted here with a miraculous change of heart, deep understanding of his conduct, and profound sorrow for the trouble he's caused. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced in the least; I think I understand now why so many of the longer-term checkusers have stopped doing this sort of thing: The end result is that nobody wants to do anything about it, and you've wasted several hours (about six, in this case) dealing with it. Essjay (Talk) 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In my opinion Conrad Devonshire is on final warning. I think that's enough of a result. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, why did you not just immediately block? (→Netscott) 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect for the same reason I generally don't immediately block when I find anomalies doing CheckUser: it's best to have another party verify your suspicions before going public with serious accusations. If I, as a CheckUser, block sua sponte based solely on CheckUser evidence, and someone complains, I am in the situation of having to justify my block with the reason "I have evidence that supports this block, but I cannot show it to you". This doesn't go over well. Having the evidence reviewed by other trustworthy individuals at least results in a united front before a block goes in, with multiple seemingly reasonable people who will stand behind it. If the other people won't stand behind it, then it would have been a bad idea to block in the first place, eh?

I view my role, when using CheckUser, as that of a security officer. It's my job to examine the evidence and report on what I find to others to decide what to do as a result of my findings. It's a way to increase accountability for a position which carries a great deal of trust and responsibility. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your fine detailed response makes good sense Kelly Martin thanks for sharing the logic there. What is your opinion on how Conrad Devonshire's case should be handled? (→Netscott) 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I believe prevention extends beyond the individual user concerned, the message we seem to be sending out here is that provided you apologise when caught then no problem. --pgk^(talk) 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the message. Wikipedia is extremely generous with second chances. Unfortunately, consideration of the effects on other users is often neglected (as Essjay pointed out, or as in the case of the unblocking of Blu Aardvark and MSK). By unblocking him are we sending the signal that we are more interested in rehabilitating one part-time vandal than in respecting the efforts of dozens of vandal fighters? A long block or outright ban would send the message that his disruptive activities and their negative effects on others so outweigh his positive contributions that we would rather not have him around anymore. (On the other hand such a ban would be largely symbolic as there is no practical way of keeping Conrad from continuing to create more abusive accounts--he just couldn't get "credit" for reverting them anymore.) Thatcher131 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that is really the message, nor do I think Essjay has wasted his time, although I see where he is coming from. Bear in mind that blocking isn't the only consequence in play in this case; for example, Conrad Devonshire clearly had ambitions to become an admin and realistically that will not happen now. Alerting the community to this kind of fraud is very much a concrete result in of itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that if you apologise and stop then all should be forgiven. Call me a cynic but we only have his word that he is taking a wikibreak. For all we know he is happily editing (and trolling for that matter) with yet another sock. I don't think unblocking him was the best thing to do, it gives a rather wishy washy effect. A week was a very short block in the first place IMO and it should have stood unless there was overwhelming support here to undo it - which there wasn't. Having said that, what's done is done. I think he needs to be carefully watched and if he shows any sign of his past bad behaviour he needs to be community banned. If OTOH he stops fucking about he should be completely forgiven. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Can't say I'm pleased with the way this has evolved. We have a user who has made multiple vandal-only accounts, and has attempted to improve his cred by "reporting them". He also did not come clean when first approached about it. Heartfelt apologies or not, there must be something said on a community front that such behaviour is unacceptable. I think that entails a block. Call it punitive if you want. There was no consensus to undo the action -- Samir धर्म 22:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still support the block. Not to discredit the otherwise good work of Conrad, the rules need to be applied evenly to all. Essjay did the right thing. Conrad isn't necessarily eliminated from becoming an admin someday. Enduring a week long block and then returning to solid editing for a period of time will suffice.--MONGO 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'm restoring the week-long block, based on the evolving input here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment that we don't do punative blocks. We clearly do however do preventative blocks. We can support a block here while at the same time remembering that we're not "empowered" and don't hand out spankings. - brenneman ^{L} 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to register my view ... I don't believe it when someone "reveals" that they have various mental illnesses as an excuse for their actions. It's too convenient. If they've been open about it from the get-go, and then later on they do something that might be a result of their illness I understand, but magically becoming schizophrenic when it's revealed you've made over a dozen abusive sockpuppets is too much. We're being played. --Cyde↔Weys 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well to be fair he does state on his user page that he has suffered from mental problems [6]. 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting the one-week block. I find it short, and would have suggested a month, but I'm not now recommending we jerk the user around any more by changing the block length. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

I agree. Essjay saved us all some work by spotting this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from his talk page and modified slightly) Uhh, sorry, looks like I am the only one who feels that Conrad's apology is next to meaningless, and that he deserves a very long term block. Actions speak louder than words. If we are going to endorse his apology which resulted from his vandalism fiasco, then we are basically saying that creating accounts and reporting them was constructive in the first place. In other words: creating damage can be nullified by certain actions. Sorry, I don't think so. And incidentally, on a personal note, the accounts that he kept creating are marginally funny after the "list of shock sites" debacle. I'm sure, however, they aren't funny to the people who had to remove them and delete them etc. If you want forgiveness, see a priest, as a Jew I believe in guilt :-) - Abscissa 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

Per the terms of his probation, Guy Montag has been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestaking is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --Leifern 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of bad faith. Furthermore, see, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [7], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: [8]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --Leifern 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The ban was undone by User:Briangotts [9]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested

On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin [10], and substantially rewrote the article [11]. This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be Deir Yassin massacre. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Based on this, I reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.

As I have been involved, I request that this move is reviewed by independent admins, and undone if they come to a different conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page has been moved back in the meanwhile by involved editors, however, I will move the page back if there is no objection of uninvolved admin's of the decision I described above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what you did on the Israel apartheid page(s): you moved pages using admin tools, even though you were directly involved in the dispute. Also, your accusations of vote-stacking could amount to no more than like-minded people arriving because they agreed with what was being done. Admins are not allowed to use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute they're involved in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The incident SlimVirgin points at has been discussed here, seeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#Admin_protecting.2C_then_editing_article. The votestaking was confirmed by an uninvolved admin, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. For the rest, I have posted my action here for review by uninvolved admins as it could be disputed, and if an univolved admin concludes that the move is invalid, I will move it back without hestitation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this, and I have concluded that the move was invalid, because you're involved in the dispute but used an admin tool to make the move. You acknowledged that you were involved in the dispute when you asked another admin to ban Guy Montag from the page. Therefore, please undo the move, and leave it for someone who has no connection with the article to decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider you uninvolved due to our disagreements at various other Israel-Palestine related articles, and the ongoing ArbCom case here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you're well out of order. You don't make me involved just because you choose to say so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have moved it yourself, however it should be moved back. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to the original name Deir Yassin massacre or moved back from my move to the Battle of Deir Yassin? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to Deir Yassin massacre. But you shouldn't do it and you shouldn't have done it. - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will not do it myself, but leave it to another admin to do it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back from your move. Please undo whatever it was you did. You posted for input, and you've been given input. Kindly don't ignore it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to undo at the moment, as the page has been reverted back to Battle of Deir Yassin. However, the move revert war that has ensued may require further consideration, maybe even by the ArbCom. Pecher ^Talk 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this dispute and I don't remember ever editing pages on the Middle-East - but I do have some experience carrying out moves requested on WP:RM. I think that Kim van der Linde should not have closed the debate herself, having taken part in it. In spite of that, having spent some time looking into this, I agree with her analysis. The vote solicitation by Guy Montag clearly tainted the vote. His original move was objected to almost immediately. The user is on probation for biased editing on articles of this kind. This all seems to speak fairly clearly to moving the article to the name it had at its creation and which it still had last month. I've seen no rebuttal to this - can anyone offer one? Sarah? Haukur 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, I have no opinion about the title, and don't know anything about the arguments. My only concern is that we're calling an editor's attempt to get help from other editors "vote-stacking," when editors are in fact encouraged to involve other people in disputes and polls. Had he posted to 50 talk pages, I can see the grounds for concern, but five seems legitimate enough to me, and the fact that he was doing it openly on talk pages is another factor in his favor. There's probably a guideline about this somewhere, so maybe I should look around. I'm also concerned about Kim's comment that "Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces ..." How could she know what these editors' preferences were regarding what to call the Deir Yassin battle/massacre, if they hadn't already commented on it; and if they had already commented, then why is she concerned about their involvement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Very often you can make a good guess what opinion people will have on a given dispute and selectively contact those you think will agree with you. I know, I used to do this sort of thing back in my move-warring days... In this case Guy was, it seems, 100% successful in contacting the right people. The best way to bring attention to a vote is through noticeboards which anyone can watch. Haukur 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can think of several others who might have supported who he appears not to have contacted, so there doesn't seem to have been any kind of a concerted effort. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis and Haukur, I recognize that I should not have moved the article myself, but should have brought it to the attention of this noticeboard to start with. My judgement error on that part. My appologies for that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you did exactly the same thing on various pages related to Israeli apartheid (four times, I believe), and seeing the amount of trouble it has caused, it's hard to see how you could make the same mistake again and not realize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See this log for the moves in question. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The page should be moved back, and the move poll be taken there. Anyone else want to do it? - FrancisTyers · 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.

On another note, Kimv really seems to have an issue with using his administrative powers to gain an advantage in a dipute that he is a primary party to, while it is a step forward that he just admitted that he shouldn't have done it, I really must question his veracity considering the fact that in another post above he basically said that he didn't act inappropriately because people weren't "assuming good faith" whatever that means.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I think this is the type of situation that Wikipedia:Naming conflict (originally developed by Ed Poor and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."

Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically excluded from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.

The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Wikipedia entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible original research ("defining new terms"). Unfortunately it appears that the POV-pushers have taken over on this article; I think the page's move permissions will need to be locked and the case referred for arbitration. -- ChrisO 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of title that shouldn't be decided by a Google search, in my view, because of the number of highly POV sites that get included. What I do with contentious titles is try to find out what mainstream academics call it. Maybe that could be done here: try to find out what academic historians refer to it as? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help, I just did a Google Books search for the two terms. 56 books use "Deir Yassin massacre" and only one uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" (citing "a motion [which] was put before the Jerusalem city council to honor the five Zionist patriots who "had fallen during the battle of Deir Yassin"." - the motion failed after a public outcry.) 142 books use the terms "Deir Yassin" and "massacre" in close proximity. Google Scholar returns 51 articles using "Deir Yassin massacre" and none at all using "Battle of Deir Yassin". All of the encyclopedia entries that I've found relating to Deir Yassin refer to the "massacre" at "Deir Yassin" (cites: Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable, A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present, A Dictionary of Political Biography, The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia). None refer to it as a "battle".

So it seems that the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" is not only little used but is associated with a specific, highly controversial POV - rather akin to calling the Srebrenica massacre the "Battle of Srebrenica", as some denialists are wont to do in that case. This seems a very clear-cut case of a non-mainstream term being adopted for presumably POV reasons. -- ChrisO 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have made a watertight case from a NPOV so unless anyone can find and equally strong verifiable rebuttal, this should be accepted, and the contention should cease. Naturally what people think it should be called is pure OR and irrelevant. We are looking for the commonly accepted term, the principle of least surprise. Tyrenius 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A "watertight case"? Are you serious? All he did was illustrate a pov, its not like someone can say that hey you can't disagree with him, can;t you see that my side has already made a watertight case? Anyways it is irrelevent what the majority of people call the incident, what matters is that we chose a title that does not favor any pov, I am not saying that "battle of Deir Yassin" is completly npov I am just saying that the "Deir Yassin Massacre" really isn't npov either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll go ahead and move the page back, citing this discussion. Haukur 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, you might want to move protect the page after that to avoid a new move war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if someone else did that. Haukur 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe a move war is forthcoming Kim as long as you stay out of it. I reverted your initial move because of your completely unacceptable behaviour there. If Guy Montag's initial move was done without consensus, then it should have been reverted, and done so swiftly. You starting a poll on the matter, rejecting the legitimacy of the results when they failed to go your way, and then making an out of process move however, was farcical, especially given your current involvement in an ArbComm case on this very same matter. The move war was not the result the intractability of the issue, but rather a response to your complete lack of standing to make the aforementioned move. This entire move war could have been avoided if you had bothered to act in a way even vaguely resembling what is to be expected of admins. Protecting the page is thus likely unnecessary, as without your involvement in the move, I do not expect there to be serious objection to the page remaining there while debate continues on the talk page. Bibigon 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the important thing here is that KimvdLinde stays away from the situation completely. I would also suggest we try to find out what academic historians call it i.e. academics who are currently employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest this discussion not be split up. For some reason, it's been started on AN too. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know, I'm proposing to start a workshop along the lines of the ArbComm workshops to work through the specific policy issues involved (e.g WP:NC, WP:NCON, WP:NOR etc). The workshop will be at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop later today. Hopefully it'll help to identify the specific points of disagreement, provide some advice on what the policies and guidelines require, and focus the discussion on policies rather than personal POVs. I suggest we continue this discussion there. -- ChrisO 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you've protected the page against moves, and on the version you prefer. You're involved in the dispute and you're currently in front of the arbcom for using your admin powers in another content dispute. Please undo the protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it's inappropriate, please feel free to unprotect it. I've had no involvement in editing or moving the article, and my only involvement to date has been in providing pointers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, providing some data on usage and trying to help the parties to find a resolution. If you (or any other administrator) feel that makes me too close to the issue to legitimately move-protect the page, then please unprotect it. -- ChrisO 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you're involved in the dispute, and we're not allowed to use admin powers where we're involved, especially not to gain any kind of advantage, and given you suggested the page be moved back to the version you prefer, and then protected it, that's what you've done. I'm not prepared to unprotect it and be accused of wheel warring, so I'm requesting that you do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, OK. -- ChrisO 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope everyone will leave it where it is now until a consensus is reached. Your workshop idea is a good one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure I notify people when I've got the workshop prepared. You're very welcome to offer advice and views (on my talk page if you don't wish to get directly involved). Given your experience in dealing with controversial issues, I'd certainly value your advice on the policy issues. -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kim needs to "stay away from the situation completely", as Slim suggests, then so should Slim, myself and ChrisO. However, I don't see the point in delaying this - Guy Montag changed a long-established article name without consensus. His user page, User:Guy Montag identifies him as a supporter of the Irgun, the Revisionist Zionist armed militia identified as perpetrating the massacre so his interest in choosing an equivicating title for the article is clear. If a Stalinist tried to retitle "Katyn Forest Masscare" to "Battle of Katyn Forest" we would not permit it, even if he was able to rally the support of his friends in a poll. Homey 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to play that game with me. I have no involvement in this content dispute, and while I have no intention of becoming involved, I'm also not going to stay away from it because it would please you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a systemic POV when it comes to articles related to Israel so you are not neutral in this matter even if you haven't explicilty addressed content. I was not asking you to stay away from the article (you are projecting your habit onto me, it seems) - rather I'm saying you are in no position to dictate to Kim that she should stay away from it.Homey 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could the three of you please stop ragging on each other? It's incivil, inappropriate and definitely not in the right place. It's certainly not going to resolve anything! -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?

(Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F)

I'm rather troubled by the problems which KimvdLinde has reported over at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. As I've posted there, the article's current title of "Battle of Deir Yassin" violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:No original research (it's a novel term with negligible use outside Wikipedia - only 81 hits versus over 21,000 for the alternative "Deir Yassin massacre"). It also probably violates Wikipedia:NPOV, as it seems to be a novel and minority-POV term for an historical incident which is generally known by a different name. (It's comparable, for instance, to renaming Srebrenica massacre to "Battle of Srebrenica" or American War of Independence to "War of American Aggression".)

In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and, unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.

Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? Kim Bruning 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've found in instances like this (Republic of Macedonia comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Wikipedia policies. -- ChrisO 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors don't care about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- ChrisO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as WP:NOR. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bruning is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the The Wrong Version is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend.  : - ) FloNight ^talk 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge the interested editors to have a look for themselves at the ArbCom case before the decide what is going on. I am not going to drag the extended discussions from there to here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde at venus I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Wikipedia. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. FloNight ^talk 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I share your opinion about "the wrong version". -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is a misrepresentation. Slim is one of the admins against whom sanctions are being proposed - Fred Bauder proposed a one month ban - there have been no action proposed against Kim, nor is she accused of having participated in the wheel war that has gotten Slim in trouble. Homey 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, quit it. You and Kim van der Linde have caused the entire dispute at Israeli apartheid, and you kept it going at maximum heat and intensity, because that's how you get your kicks at Wikipedia. I've never seen such disregard for the rules about using admin tools between the pair of you. The evidence hasn't yet closed, by the way, and I'm not going to argue it out with you here, because it would make your day. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you brought up the arbcomm case and misrepresented it by claiming that Kim was "central" to it while you are "barely involved" when in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't. As for "disregard for the rules about using admin tools", you are the one who participated in a wheel war, not Kim (or myself) so stop deflecting (or projecting). Homey 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't

Are you serious? I'm sure that not even you can actually believe that that makes sense, You proposed a bunch of wierd and inappropriate "solutions" that nobody supported and then you claim that that shows that Slim is more involved with the dispute than you or Kim. The fact that there isn't a bunch of stupid proposals involving you and kim really just shows that other people aren't as spiteful or inappropriate as the two of you. I guess the fact that there is nothing on that page that explicity calls for your adminship to be taken away and for you to be banned must show that you are a completely neutral and uninvolved party or at least that you did nothing inappropriate at all in that conflict, is that right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this really is my last comment. No sanctions have been proposed against Kim because no evidence has been put up about her yet. Only half the evidence is in, Homey. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Homey, please lay off. Ragging on SlimVirgin only gets us deeper. Fred Bauder 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 for acting like WP:TROLLs. I had lodged a previous report on ANI[17] that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on Talk:Sikhism, Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of user:Sukh. These users have spoken offensively to user:Sukh, User:Rajatjghai, user:Gsingh and myself.

Despite repeated and continuous warnings, both ARYAN818 and Elven6 have repeatedly engaged in revert wars, removing comments from their own talkpages, coming close to WP:3RR violations, repeatedly violated WP:NPA (includings religious, personal, political and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, and have been acting like WP:VANDALs and WP:TROLLs.

user:ARYAN818

Relevant Diffs (most recent):[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35]

Relevant Diffs (continuous):[36], [37],[38],[39], [40],[41]

user:Elven6

Relevant Diffs (most recent): [42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52]

Previous Report (continuous):[53], [54], [55],[56]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduization of Sikhism - Elven6 created an article that constituted WP:COPYVIO.

Thank you - I request administrators to take decisive action, as this has been going on for over one month, with a previous ANI report and numerous warnings. This Fire Burns Always 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to block both of them for 48hrs. Frankly some of the material discussed isn't for me to understand - well I couldn't see anything obvious from the article edits, but some of the talk page edits seem rather bizarre to say the least and some of the knockabout tone and inappropriate language is very disconcerting. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically Aryan argues from a hard Hindu POV, and Elven is oppposite that. The diffs provided illustrate a combination of revert warring, personal attacks, abusive messaging, vandalism and constant disruption of Wikipedia work. This Fire Burns Always 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This time I ask for really decisive and follow-up action, because several good editors have taken a lot of hell for over a month over several articles. A thousand warnings have not affected these gentlemen, who haven't even acted in a civil manner aside from the disputes. This Fire Burns Always 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen both these users (ARYAN818, Elven6), I endorse these blocks. Both of these users spent most of their time in disrupting the articles and attacking other editors, without adding anything fruitful to the articles in question. ARYAN818 has already been blocked several times for his user name, though he claims 818 is just his area code and has no neo-nazi connotations (though his frequent edit-wars in Aryan provide an interesting insight). I suggest other admins keep an eye on the pages referred to above as frequent edit warring continues to foment there. --Ragib 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 should be permanently blocked for his user name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

His articles of interest (and manner of edit warring) lead me to believe that he is not a neo-Nazi. While this can also be easily faked, his name in the email address he used to write to the unblock mailing list also had "Aryan" as a first name. Maybe he should be blocked for edit warring, but I don't think he should be indef blocked unless he shows more serious behaviour. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis use the code number "88" ("HH" = "Heil Hitler". This is a clearly inappropriate user name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Chinese people use "88" as a good luck number. I've seen plenty of people with "88" at the end of their user name (I mean email address and user names outside of Wikipedia, I don't know anyone here IRL), and they're about as Neo-Nazi as I am. I'd never heard of this 88=HH="Heil Hitler" stuff until here (and as a side rant, Buddhists can't show a certain religious symbol because of the damn swastika). And he's not 88, he's 818. Look, I'm not saying that it's not serious, but there is such a thing as too sensitive. This guy is an edit warrior, sure, but looking at his edits, he doesn't strike to me as a neo-Nazi (at least, not yet). That means that he's certainly a good recipient of a block if he's a persistent edit warrior, but it'll take more evidence to indef-block him for having a neo-Nazi username. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this had been pointed out already, but in the same way that 88 means HH, 818 means HAH, or Heil Adolf Hitler. And there's the tiny matter of the fact that the code is preceded by the word Aryan. If his username was CuteFluffyKitten818 it might be different, but it's not. The claim that it's a common name sounds fishy to me - I've never heard of anyone called 'Aryan', and after going through two disambig links I only managed to find a single person called 'Arya'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will study the matter and shall offer my comments within two to three days. Prima facie, I find that the two users concerned do not care for the guidance and comments of fellow-wikipedians. This is not a good sign. --Bhadani 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Being referred to by name again

"Ryulong! you are not Moot, stop changing other peoples edits." Does this count as a personal attack, too? Ryulong 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of these are vandalism, but please don't look for the NPA policy. It's not needed, in the first place, and we all take chances when we edit Wikipedia. The gibbering on the talk page and the random edit warring is sufficient for intervention without trying to assess whether or not a person has been insulted. Geogre 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Community block on User:Mayor Westfall

Recently User:Adam Bishop blocked this user indefinitely for trolling on WP:RD. Having looked through his contributions, I agree partially: some of his posts are clearly inflammatory (check out his first edit, for instance). I feel that this guy could be unblocked eventually, but certainly not yet. Anyway, I just wanted to post a notice about it here; since this would be a community patience block, I think it merits a mention here at least. Mangojuice^talk 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Baron Von Westfall is presently active on WP:RD. — Lomn | Talk 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious. Mayor Westfall was blocked on 7/11, and Baron Von Westfall became active later. FWIW though, Baron Von Westfall seems to be behaving. *shrugs* Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So were some of Westfall version 1's. The guy's just a timewaster; he had thirteen main-space edits, and two to article talkspace - one of which was abusive. One Wikipedia: space edit that wasn't to WP:RD (which was on an AFD - "I'm the mayor and I say delete"), and north of a hundred, mostly pointless, questions to WP:RD. As far as I can see he was trying to be funny; it didn't work. On it being unsubtly hinted that we knew he was screwing about, he got abusive; on Tagishsimon making the point clearer, he just strutted. Community patience was definitely exhausted on my part - he was being an idiot, wasting people's time, and not even having the redeeming feature of being funny about it. Shimgray | talk | 16:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a suspected sock puppet case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mayor Westfall, with Mayor Westfall (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) being the master and Baron Von Westfall (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) being the sockpuppet. Not only do they have similar names, both of which use the reference desk, here. The account was only created after Mayor Westfall was blocked. Enough to block? Iolakana|T 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (Merged from other entry on this page by Baron Von Westfall 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this block was justified. I have contributed to Wikipedia in many ways. As to questions on the reference desk, if questioning paradigms, and having a differing view on morallity & ethics is trolling, then would Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, and Socrates also be banned from Wikipedia for their views? The reference desk should be a place for Wikipedia users to ask questions they would like answers to. Many of the questions I have may be provokotive to some, but so would have been "Hey, why don't we free the slaves?" in the early 1800s. I shouldn't have responded to rude comment made by another Wikipedian in the manner I did, but other than that I have done no wrong--certanly nothing close to justifying this ban. In the future, I will try not to respond to personal attacks, like this and this. Btw, why where those users not repromanded for their personal attacks against me. Not a big deal, as I know they won't be--Wikipedia isn't as fair as it should be, but I think they should have been. Baron Von Westfall 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But your username is too similar to the current blocked user. Iolakana|^T 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kilo-Lima&curid=2828608&diff=64966492&oldid=64674848 Confirmation of block evasion] has been made in the form of a confession. Please block this sock account and extend the block on User:Mayor Westfall for being an admitted puppet master. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcyu

I have blocked Marcyu (talk · contribs) for one month for personal attacks (and refusing to attribute comments by means of refusing to sign -- or to let people use {{unsigned}} to show what comments that he's making). Comments about whether the block is appropriate and whether it's for the right length are welcome. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much in the way of constructive edits from that user, but I can't see any personal attacks on a random sampling, either. Can you provide some diffs? The so-called "unlinked signature" is pretty clearly in violation of WP:SIG (obscures real username, inappropriate pseudo-username "Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins"). --ajn (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the "signature" is the personal attack, in my opinion. Certainly, if it had been a real user name, it would have qualified for an username block. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's grossly inappropriate, but I don't think I'd call it a personal attack. I think it would be a good idea to make it absolutely clear about what exactly you have blocked this person for, on their talk page, given the history and argument about what is/isn't disruption, vandalism and attacking. --ajn (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcyu has emailed unblock-en-L asking to be unblocked on the grounds that there was no policy justified reason for the block in the first place.

On first impression, this reads like a minor user dispute between Nlu and Marcyu in which Nlu has used admin powers without sufficient justification. Nothing that Marcyu did was significantly disruptive to any page or discussion, nor did it reach the threshold of personal attack, though it was rude and inappropriate.

This additionally appears to be a violation of the general rule that admins should not block people they are engaged in disputes with other than for egregious abuse or clear vandalism.

I would like to request further review of this block and Nlu's actions. At the very least a more detailed justification for why the block was made is required.

Georgewilliamherbert 07:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He's also emailed me, with essentially the same message that went to the mailing list. He's claiming that he was initially blocked by Nlu for six months and that this will show up in the deleted history of his main page. Nlu's only actions on User:Marcyu were to delete it on Marcyu's own request - {{db-owner}} - on the 18th of March. He then deleted it again a couple of hours later as a vandalism/attack page, G3/A6 on WP:CSD, because Marcyu's response to Nlu's doing what he asked for was to call him and R. Koot "extremely biased, immature, and unprofessional". There is no six month block in the block log, there is nothing in Marcyu's talk page history mentioning six months as far as I can see. He's also claiming that Nlu reverts anything he adds to articles - since March, he has made one edit to an article, to insert an unconfirmed rumour [57] and Nlu did indeed (properly) revert that. I don't see any other evidence of Nlu reverting article edits (Marcyu has made 26 of these in the eight months he's been here - he claims to generally edit anonymously because of this alleged, and apparently nonexistent, constant reverting by Nlu). The only disputes with Nlu I see here are Marcyu's persistent and long-term refusal to sign talk page edits with anything other than an attack on admins (if a "signature" doesn't contain either your username or a link to your user page, it's not a signature), and persistent attempts to remove vandalism and personal attack warnings from his talk page (one placed there by Nlu, most placed there by other people). I'm not a big fan of people slapping warning templates on people's pages without any further comment and then getting aerated when they remove them, and Nlu could have been more communicative, but it's pretty clear that Marcyu just isn't getting the point. He's an adult, he ought to know how to behave in communal situations, and as he also claims to be a journalist he ought to know about the importance of verifiability and reputable sources (which have been the cause of many of his problems with other editors in the past, apparently). I'd be in favour of reducing the block to maybe a week, on condition that he uses a proper signature in future and stops mucking about with his talk page to remove warnings, but I think the block is justifiable. --ajn (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the block. In the interests of disclosure, I'm somewhat involved in this, but this guy's clearly abrasive and not getting the message. He also seems to enjoy playing the innocent, and making up ridiculous accusations (see WP:AN#Hasty Blocking by Some Administrators. When I confronted him with overwhelming evidence completely quashing his accusations against Nlu, he went off onto another tangent. This is not the type of person who should be editing Wikipedia. Werdna talk criticism 11:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having exchanged a few emails with him, I'm now of the opinion that Marcyu is trolling. He has made several claims which turn out to have no basis whatsoever when investigated. --ajn (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over pending deletion vote of Encyclopedia Dramatica

The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself.

If the vote and discussion from the article is a "keep" or no concensus, I am concerned that some action may be unilaterally taken vs. this article after the vote possibly, going against concensus. Questions in regards to this have been ignored on the vote page, while every other question/comment from parties opposed to the article's existence have been met with swiftness. rootology 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "vote"...--MONGO 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is fine for syntax clarification, thank you. I expect if a decision of keep or no concensus of the discussion is clearly reached, it will be honored as is standard...? rootology 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad for whoever is going to close that mess. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have evidence that the attempt at deletion was a premeditated act to destroy the article: [58]( other one - threat in edit summary) Hardvice 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are strong accusations from you. I think that it would be good if you offered an apology.--MONGO 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, almost any AFD nom is a "premediated attempt to destroy an article". That is, after all, the point of nominating something for AFD - to remove something that the nominator believes is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I would hope that AFD noms are premeditated - I would hate to think that people would nominate articles for deletion on the spur of the moment. Calling an AFD nom "a premeditated attempt to destroy an article" is like calling article creation a "premeditated attempt to create an article". It is rather impolite to phrase it that way, trying to spin a perfectly normal action into something sinister. Guettarda 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(But very amusing now that you've pointed it out! Tyrenius 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

If the community decides they don't want the article, then fine, it can go. I don't see a problem with this. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The actions and comments from certain members of the keep side of the debate are really quite shameful. If anyone wonders why admins burn out or get upset occasionally, one need only look at the onslaught of willful ignorance and the completely undeserved sense of entitlement being utilized by certain members of that debate, threatening current editors who have had the courage to speak their mind, and even against anyone who would potentially enforce policy in regards to this debate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Examples, please? I've seen no threats or intimidation from anyone but MONGO and Hipocrite, mostly MONGO. Karwynn (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

m:Don't be a dick should have a corollary, m:People are dicks.

Emails

Am I the only who received a ridiculously long-winded ranty email regarding this? Twice actually. The same both time. 207.96.237.60 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I had no activated the cookies when connecting. Circeus 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got one, too [59]. I made a note of it in the AfD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that every admin (except those complained about, which includes me and MONGO) received a copy. Oh well, at least one recipient has forwarded the silly thing to the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No copy was sent to my inbox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Zscout, be careful what you wish for. The only thing I learned from the copy I received was that MONGO was an Admin (for some reason I had presumed he wasn't) -- the letter does not make it clear who is doing what to whom, except that one or more individuals are alleged to be acting very badly. -- llywrch 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the IP address of the emailer used by any other usernames? Can that be looked into to see who sent it? rootology 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got this email too. -- JamesTeterenko 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the sending IP address in use by any usernames on wikipedia? rootology 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got one too, even though I'm listed in it for deleting an attack image. I guess I'll have to investigate myself ;). NoSeptember 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got two, from different senders. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got FIVE, from one sender (User:Rptng03509345) -- Samuel Wantman 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And I see hw has now been blocked. Blocking still allows the use of Special:Emailuser, the possibility of blocking that should be requested to prevent abuse? Circeus 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I also received such an email from User:Rptng03509345. I guess email needs to be allowed from blocked users as it is one way they can request unblocking.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• From looking at the linguistic patterns and involvement surrounding this ED issue I have a sneaking suspicion that user Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is our spammer. Does this type of diff and language seem familiar? (→Netscott) 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• the emailer may be using this page as a place to copy and paste from. It has all the same info.--MONGO 10:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia

I see and have a big problem with this editor and I don't quite know how to deal with it.

This editor is very domineering and controlling and not entirely scrupulous about it, frequently needling and baiting other editors. I'd rather you form your own opinions by visiting Talk:Asperger syndrome‎ and archives.

With this editor the deal seems to be that unless you submit to his/her control he/she will find ways to make trouble for you.

Today I REALLY believed that we had finally got a concensus going in spite of User:SandyGeorgia that still included User:SandyGeorgia, but I was wrong, the minute I expressed this here [60] , she/he had a knife in my back here [61] about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned).

I feel this user needs a gentle "word from the wise", and I can't find a way to do it right.

HELP! --Zeraeph 01:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When did this all start, and who (if any) are suspected sock-puppets? (I see references to sockpuppet suspicions on that talk page). All in all, some more detailed history please? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The mention of sockpuppets is a red herring really...an anonymous editor jumped in and asttacked an editor, so I expressed the hope this was not a sockpuppet (with no particular "puppeteer" mentioned or in mind)...User:SandyGeorgia jumped to the conclusion I meant her. --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if this is true, User:SandyGeorgia has been a very kind spirited person, I've worked with her on a mediation for Tourettes syndrome and she was most kind. I'm not sure where she "stabs you in the back", can you make it more explicit? I'm going to notify her about this section so she can reply. - FrancisTyers · 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I have read that mediation and I honestly do not see any evidence of "kindness" (for example: "Sandy is hypocritical when she gets on her soapbox about how I'm violating wiki rules! She edited some things I wrote on the talk page and moved it out of context. She also tried to simply erase the entire section on Marinol, until a sysop reverted the page back!", not quite my idea of "kindness"). I just see yet another editor who has been subjected to the kind of abuse I see on Asperger Syndrome, not being believed, which is a common feature of this kind of situation. --Zeraeph 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Francis. Since User:Zeraeph had not contacted me about any problem or dispute between us, I was not aware of this issue, and do appreciate that you brought it to my awareness.

That is completely untrue, I have repeatedly tried to find reasonably civil ways to express the problems I see and have with User:SandyGeorgia and I have every reason to believe she is aware of that (see [62] and most clearly here:[63]). I really think someone should actually look at the talk pages for themselves and form their own opinions

It has been suggested that she has already behaved similarly on another article. [64] Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an appointment right now, but will be glad to respond in more detail later this evening, as needed. But, just to briefly address the question above about sock puppetry:

I am not aware of any suspicious or suspected sock puppetry on the article, nor have there been any problems with edit warring or anything of that nature, either right before, during or after Zeraeph raised the question of a sock puppet. I have no reason to suspect there is any sock puppetry going on, and believe the comments Zeraeph referred to were probably from a legitimate, anon editor. Since Zeraeph mentioned a sock puppet in a passage referring to User:RN and myself, I simply asked him to please not refer to sock puppets in proximity to my name.[65] I also reminded him of civility, because of his response to the anon editor, to myself, and to Rdos. Sandy 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I should like a few impartial parties to look at the relevant talk pages for themselves. However, I do not think it is for User:SandyGeorgia to presume or inform me (or anyone) of what they mean by anything they say, nor to order people not to mention anything in connection with her name. To whit, if now, or at any time in the future, a person sees cause to suspect her of sockpuppetry User:SandyGeorgia has no right to order them to refrain from remarking it. Nor to dictate in any way what other editors should, or should not, say, yet she frequently does. Frankly she often addresses other editors as though she were a schoolmarm and they children who must defer to her. She also treats articles as though they were her personal property. To the extent of informing other editors what they may or may not do on both talk pages and in-line comments. --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing massive and consensual effort to improve the AS article,[66] and editors are working very well together, with the exception of those few incidents, which resulted in a message to Zeraeph about civility.[67] If a more detailed history is needed, I can provide more input later this evening. I do hope that Zeraeph will not be offended because I asked about a policy that I am not that clear on:[68] it is my understanding that warnings and warning templates are not supposed to be removed from talk pages, which appeared to be the case here. I think a review of the talk page history will reveal why I was concerned that we maintain civility. Regards, Sandy 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is a persistent tendency to distort facts, present them selectively and express her opinions as though they were hard fact, as above.

I would really like an impartial admin, with whom neither of us have ever been involved, to keep an ongoing eye on this situation. I know what abusive control looks like. I also know that I have never seen behavior like User:SandyGeorgia's on Wikipedia before, it seems to me to be all about "tactics" and "control" for the sake of it, and I am at a total loss how to cope with it, at the same time I really don't want to run away and leave a significant article at the mercy of any distortion of bias or information she may choose to insinuate into it. I'm not putting in a lot of refs because I think the best way for anyone to see this is the look at an overview of the WHOLE picture, and see the pattern, not "selective excerpts". --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Diffs and refs added. Sandy 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the sock puppetry issue, I jumped to no conclusion, Zeraeph, but I did point out that you were using the term sockpuppetry in the next sentence after you mentioned me, and I asked that you please take care with doing that. This is in accordance with Wiki policy (AGF), not a "domineering" directive of mine. We had another problem when you archived the talk page, with no warning, in the midst of multiple ongoing discussions and a FARC. Because you archived *current* (within the hour) discussions, I asked that you not do that, and I restored the talk page, with consensus, while other editors waited. [69] Again, this is in accordance with Wiki policies, not my directives. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the sockpuppetry issue, here is my remark [70] Sandy's initial response[71] here is Sandy's second response an hour or so later [72].

I would prefer that one or two impartial admins looked at the relevant pages and formed their own opinions of what is happening in context (not least because, as long as they do, nothing else will happen, and the page will be edited by true concensus of equals as it should be).

I do not believe any WP guideline is meant to be expressed as though it were a personal order to a subordinate. re the above this might be a good starting point [73] where Sandy orders me, as though I were a subordinate, to revert an action I had stated I believed was right in it's context, rather than doing it herself. Which WP guideline impels her to do that? --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the TS mediation, those were statements made by my co-editor on the TS page, and since Francis was the mediator, he was in a good position to know whether or not I was kind. The co-editor was emotional, and was mistaken in his statements about the talk page or the edits. In fact, I have been very kind to him, and with respect to him, then and today. A thorough review of the talk pages in question will reveal the facts. Francis, who was the mediator, can respond to your charges about my behavior on that. I would be interested in seeing an example of what you refer to as my abuse on AS, so I can understand what is troubling you. We have gotten a lot of collaborative work done in the last week, and I've not seen any evidence of discord. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As already clearly shown, Sandy is perfectly well aware of discord (see [74] and most clearly here:[75]) and the above statement is untrue.

Also see her own comment further down here where she states You have never made contact with me, indicating we had a dispute, but you did seem to engage in a personal attack on me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, when you referred to me as domineering and passive-aggressive. Since we have so much work to do on that article, I ignored the personal attack, called no attention to it, and moved on with our work. Because you are a frequent editor of pesonality disorder articles, I just took it that you tossed terms like that around casually, and decided not to make it personal. .

It is very hard to communicate discord when the person you are trying to communicate it to dismisses your every attempt to communicate it as a "personal attack", and tries to get you censured for it instead of considering or discussing what you are saying. As a result, you are prevented from trying to communicate by the risk of censure. Unfortunately, the more severe the problem, the harder it is to communicate in a way that cannot possibly be manipulated and presented as a "personal attack", which was my cue to bring this here.

I suggest Sandy show examples of "kindness" because while I have frequently seen her flatter people one moment and undermine them the next in the exact manner of one who seeks to control and manipulate by abusive means. I have never seen a trace of "kindness" --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that you got notably upset when I used the words "unencylopedic tone" to describe an anon editor's insertion of unreferenced, unnotable text which appeared as an advert. [76] You asked me to define "unencyclopedic tone", I answered your question 3, 4, or 5 times, no answer I gave satisfied you, and the topic was dropped. I was not aware you were still stewing on something. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be read in context, as it happened [77]. My problem was with the way Sandy persistently dismissed the contributions of other editors without real explanation of discussion, using phrases like "unencyclopaedic tone" in lieu of giving reasons as though this were a self evident fact rather than just her opinion. My error there was in trying to show her what she was doing rather than state it clearly, because I could not think of any way to state it clearly without being represented as "uncivil" again. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have provided links above to the Asperger syndrome FARC as evidence that you have tried to find civil ways to express the problems you see, but I see no evidence on those pages that I am to suppose you are speaking of me, as the description does not fit me. I presumed you were speaking of problems on the article that long pre-date me (I cannot help but notice the tension) and that I had walked into the middle of something. Regardless of at whom the comments were aimed, they didn't seem very civil. Since you are now saying they were aimed at me, I don't understand your objection to referencing the text from reliable sources, which we are all productively doing. If you had something to say directly about me or to me, the FARC page wasn't the best means of communicating that to me. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have provided a link to another user's page, where you were having a dispute with him because he had warned you about civility, and not me. [78] I became aware of this when I went to his userpage to notify him of the FARC, as was agreed on the WP:FAR talk page. When I found I was being discussed there, I tried to make light of it. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have never made contact with me, indicating we had a dispute, but you did seem to engage in a personal attack on me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, when you referred to me as domineering and passive-aggressive. [79] Since we have so much work to do on that article, I ignored the personal attack, called no attention to it, and moved on with our work. Because you are a frequent editor of pesonality disorder articles, I just took it that you tossed terms like that around casually, and decided not to make it personal. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy on one hand, insists that she was not aware or informed of, any problem, and on the other insists that my every attempt to communicate that was a "personal attack" to be ignored. How manipulative is that??? It's called creating a "double bind" where the target is caught either way. It is also quite typical of her ongoing behavior. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As to "order people not to mention anything in connection with her name", order is strong language. I asked you please not to refer to sock puppetry in the proximity of my name, and this is simply Wiki policy of good faith. [80] What editor appreciates having their name associated with sock puppetry? It is interesting that you say I treat the article as if it were my personal property, when the only edits I have made for five days have been to revert vandalism, cleanup references, make edits specifically requested on the talk page, or add comments to text. I have taken this position because I understand that I am seen as a neurotypical outsider by a few of you. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot be inserting bias into an article, when I'm not even editing the article, and when hundreds of edits have been made by many editors in the last five days. You are "at a total loss how to cope" with this, but one thing you did not do is talk to me about it. My e-mail is activated, I will read and respond, and I guard confidentiality of e-mail scrupulously. You are welcome to resolve this directly with me. Or, alternately, since it seems that what you have is a personal dispute with me, perhaps you would like to request mediation? I am open to any option, and hope that we can move forward amicably. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an more accurate picture would be derived from Special:Contributions/SandyGeorgia even the sheer volume of edits on one single article and it's talk page is unusual. My impression, over several days, has been that Sandy has far more interest in controlling how others edit, for the sake of controlling, than in the article or it's topic anyway. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also hoping you'll explain this comment: about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned). I don't know what incident you're referring to, what I had resolved, or what is not mentioned. Thanks, Sandy 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that as long as one or two impartial admins keep an eye on the situation I do not think the problem will continue or recur. I doubt of it would have got so far out of hand if the active presence of an admin had curbed the situation in the first place. Put bluntly, as long as Sandy believes someone with some kind of authority over her is watching she will behave like a little burnished angel, which, for me, is a perfectly satisfactory solution --Zeraeph 09:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion is that this entry is a personal attack, from an editor who has made no attempt to present or resolve his apparent dispute directly with me. Examination of the talk page reveals cordial and consensual editing, and steady ongoing progress towards improving the article in order to retain its featured status, with two editors now changing their votes on FARC to "Keep" as a result of the progress made. [81] I hope admins will explore the talk page and evaluate the extent of personal attack. I understand it is stressful to see one's past work under fire during FARC, and that tensions will naturally arise, but other editors seem to be coping fine. Sandy 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the top of this page (Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.), I respectfully request that this issue be taken to proper channels, and struck from this page. This doesn't seem to have the best means of addressing the issue, or the right place for it. Thanks, Sandy 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to participants: I just archived the talk page, it can be found here. - FrancisTyers · 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was stuck on how to handle another editor's request to archive the talk page, in the midst of this. Sandy 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, it is rather disingenuous to simply refer to this a single domineering editor - as I have supported what Sandy has done (YES we are seperate editors thankyouverymuch). Sandy has not been uncivil at all (in fact, I wish I could handle it as well as she does...), but you on the other hand have at times been slightly uncivil - but either way I'm a bit puzzled it is on ANI. In fact, you should really thank Sandy for putting in so much work into saving that article from FARC - her or myself wanting sources for information in a featured article is hardly domineering. Anyway, this particular issue is dispute resolution stuff. RN 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RN, my life experience has taught me that you are mistaken in what you say here. Also, whatever you support, I have never seen you behave as Sandy has to anyone.

If you read above you will see that the only response Sandy has chosen here is to misrepresent facts. If there is any way to resolve any issue with a person who does that then I am afraid I do not know what it is.

I am curious as to why you think that anyone would think you and Sandy are the same person?

I am also curious as to why you would suggest that I should "thank Sandy for putting in so much work into saving that article from FARC" when it is not *my* article, it belongs to the whole community, and I have made it quite plain that, like most editors, I care far more about the quality, true consensus and integrity of the article than I do about FARC...personally, I never even think of FARC --Zeraeph 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Blacklist for linkspammer?

Could someone with privileges on Meta consider blacklisting the site http://www.ringtones-dir.com? I just saw one instance of inserting hidden links into an article here, and I suspect that there are – or will be – more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There were (and probably are) more, based on the Google site search I just ran, on several non-English Wikipedias (or sort of non-English, too: there's a SCOTTISH Wikipedia?: Gin ye dinna want yer writin tae be editit athoot mercy an redistribute at will, than dinna submit it here). Someone with access to the proper tools ought to run a search on the current state of Wikipedia, not Google's probably outdated cache. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Use Special:Linksearch. I found 2. nuking now. Thatcher131 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also added to m:Talk:Spam_blacklist. Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You can remove it; I just added it to the blacklist itself. Essjay (Talk) 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark (again)

Blu Aardvark has been caught by CheckUsers making more abusive sockpuppet accounts (about two dozen in all), including such gems as The password to this account is "LOLJEWS" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and The password to this account is "JEWRANDA" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I recommend reinstating the indefinite block that was originally placed on him awhile ago before some people got the mistaken notion that he could somehow be rehabilitated. --Cyde↔Weys 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I reblocked indef for the mass sock creation, and given his prior past. 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaranda (talk • contribs)

The one year ban imposed by ArbCom has more relevance and teeth than a community imposed indef ban that is easier to overturn. I'm sure sockpuppetry would restart the clock on the ban. This is ArbCom's baby now. NoSeptember 05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This case is such a no-brainer that we don't need to waste ArbCom's time to extend the ban. --Cyde↔Weys 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't waste their time in these situations, any admin can extend the block and add it to the log on the ArbCom case page. NoSeptember 05:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark. I just added 20 users to this category from just the past week. There are still a lot of socks that Blu Aardvark created in the spring that were never tagged as socks and added to this category. --Cyde↔Weys 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blu has a funny way of showing he's not an anti-semite. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it and believe that blue ardvark was provoked when an administrator removed blue ardvark's own messages in their talk page and protected it, claiming "they attempted to use their talk page." [82] My recommendation is that you unprotect his talk page and try to reason with him. Hardvice 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comment reminds me of why I prefer ArbCom blocks. The beauty of an ArbCom based block is that appeals from his friends at Encyclopedia Dramatica etc. will go nowhere, since it now takes more than just convincing one random admin to unblock him. NoSeptember 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• He was doing this for over an week now, and he had his chances, today after the block, he came in irc and PM me calling me a fucking wanker!. No point in having him around Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Hardvice...you must be kidding! I can't imagine any reason to reason with the unreasonable.--MONGO 06:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

<removed post by banned user>

I want to make it clear that despite blocking, Willy on Wheels still does his thing. I recommend diplomacy with blue ardvark. Probably certain people on wikipedia did things to upset him and he may feel justified. Hardvice 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So what you mean is we should give preferential treatment and pander to those who aren't able to behave as adults? --pgk^(talk) 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense how preferential treatment can mean just talking to the guy. Hardvice 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you haven't edited here between January and yesterday (except for an ED afd, imagine that!), perhaps you missed all the long chats that have already taken place with this user before he was banned ;). NoSeptember 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well he was here in March for three whole edits, the last time the ED article was up for deletion...and voted to delete it.[83]...even admitting he is a SysOp at that website, so that makes two confirmed Sysops from ED and two more that have the same username here and there that are listed as sysops there...ummm.--MONGO 07:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly the troll I blocked yesterday had very similar editing patterns ;). NoSeptember 08:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, can you post a link to the checkuser results at WP:RFCU/SORT? Thanks. Thatcher131 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that indef community ban is justified but I prefer working through the Arb comm. Do not want another attempted rehab that might occur with something indef. Let's extend the ban by working through the formal process. FloNight ^talk 13:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The CheckUser results are as follows: everything in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark has been established by CheckUser as a definite sock account of Blu Aardvark. One of our CheckUsers ran a report last night and I went through the list and tagged all of the sockpuppet accounts. --Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a public record of the checkusers comment on talk page or something? The reason I ask is, if I create a record at WP:RFCU/Case and say "Cyde says so," someone is bound to cry foul, but if I can provide a diff to a checkuser, problem avoided. If there is no public record (IRC for instance), an alternative would be to create the record but ask the checkuser to personally tag it before filing it. Thatcher131 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I ran the checkuser that discovered all these account creations over the last week. I didn't personally care to bother with tagging all the accounts which were already blocked for their inappropriate names anyway, but Cyde offered to do it and I sent them to him in private. I can affirm that all of the accounts Cyde and I added to the category last night were determined by a very conclusive CheckUser. Put this diff wherever you like. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent and thank you kindly. A record has been created at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Blu Aardvark, which may be easier to find 11 months and 29 days from now than this archive.

In the Arbitration case, as a purely technical enforcement matter I have reset the ban to run for one year from today after Blu Aardvark used non-logged-in IP editing to evade his ban. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• And this is exactly why, given a choice between an indef community ban and a shorter ArbCom ban, I'd pick the ArbCom ban any day of the week. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Nod. Support working the ArbCom process to keep this disruptive user (effectively, we can count on him doing something to reset it at least once a year, it seems) indef banned without the danger of some well meaning but misinformed admin undoing the ban. Good block, Tony. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  To clarify, I have not blocked Blu Aardvark, who is already blocked indefinitely. I have simply recorded his ban evasion and reset the clock on his one year arbcom ban to run from today, as is customary in such cases. He remains indefinitely blocked, but if someone lifts this indefinite block for any reason they should then impose a block to cover the remainder of the arbcom ban from that date until July 19, 2007. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• A useful distinction :-) We can always invite him back in the unlikely event that the rabid anti-semite viewpoint becomes significantly under-represented. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would object to any welcoming of him back so long as he hosts a website which exists for the purpose of defaming and stalking Wikipedians. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

<post from banned user removed> BA, if you wish to reply, please do so in an off-wiki setting, such as the mailing list or the IRC. 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User RJ evading ban

Warning: Due to the complexity of this case the following entry is not concise. My apologies.

Background Information

This notice concerns RJII, a user who has been banned indefinately for a series of wiki violations and his own eventual admission of intent to abuse. Vision Thing is a user whose first edit occured on March 19, 2006. Because his first edit was to immediately initiate a discussion on a topic which had recently been the focus of user RJII, he was soon accused by user AaronS of being a sockpuppet. User Infinity0 also suspected Vision Thing of being a sockpuppet, and requested a checkuser. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the RJ "project", as user Logical2u said on the checkuser page, "all accounts by the RJII "team" will likely be undectable and un-check-user-verifiable, due to "home" computers, etc."

Due to lack of evidence from usercheck, the case appears to have been dropped. However, I believe that subsequent edits by user Vision Thing have more than demonstrated, via circumstantial evidence, his intimate connection to RJII. Unfortunately this is the only kind of evidence that could be applied to this case. I have compiled an extensive list of identical edits made by user RJII and Vision Thing. Please note that in my time searching dozens of articles edited by these two accounts I never found a single instance in which either editor reverted or even openly disagreed with one another, despite a tendency by both accounts to engage in edit wars and reverts. When I eventually became certain of Vision Thing being a sockpuppet I attempted to inform twice. Despite making several other edits on his talk page in the meantime, both my attempts remain ignored.

Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user

As evidence I would first like to note RJII's repeated insistance on indicating that the writers of the anarchist FAQ are "social anarchists". This is the very topic that Vision Thing first used as a subject of his first edit. The similarity of their edits can be seen from these examples by RJ,

• 27 March RJ, 30 March, 3 April, 8 April, 26 April

which can be compared with this edit by Vision Thing after RJ was banned: 9 July

Such instances are not isolated. For example, RJ and Vision Thing inserted the same edits concerning David Friedman on medieval Iceland:

• 24 April RJ
• 25 April Vision Thing
• 26 April RJ

Vision Thing has made many of the same edits that RJ was formally known for inserting since RJ's ban. Benjamin Tucker's "capitalism is at least tolerable" is a quote originally introduced into several articles by RJ:

• 20 May, 20 May

After RJ's ban it has been inserted into articles by Vision Thing in his place: 15 July

Individualist anarchism "reborn", is another quote originally inserted by RJ into the anarchism article:

• 23 June

has since been championed by Vision thing after RJs ban:

• 15 July, 3 July

Way back in January of 2005 RJ started posting many edits about the "U.S. Postal Service monopoly"

• 11 January

not surpirsingly, after RJ was banned nearly identical edits started coming from Vision Thing

• 3 July

And yet another instance, before his ban RJ inserted the following edit into Anti-capitalism: 15 June After RJs ban Vision Thing once again inserted an identical edit: 25 June

These articles and edits are only a small sample, constrained due to my limits on time. Here is a partial list of more articles that each has contributed to, often making the same or very similar edits. Please feel free to look through them to get an idea of the similarity in tone, style, and point of view: An Anarchist FAQ, Economics of fascism, Anarcho-capitalism, Bryan Caplan, Laissez-faire, Capitalism, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism in the United States, Template:Socialism, Criticisms of socialism, Talk:Wage labour, Collectivism, Anti-capitalism, Corporatism, Friedrich Hayek, United States Postal Service, Mixed economy, Free market, Property, Altruism, Natural rights, Negative and positive rights, List of anarchists.

In fact, the total number of edits to pages they hold in common is far greater than those to pages they do not. Yet, despite the fact that these two seem to have identical interests, edits, and political viewpoints, they have never engaged in so much as a "hello", with their only contact being to support one another on arbitration issues or deny that they were the same person.

Evidence of violation of wiki policy by Vision Thing beyond circumventing ban

To my knowledge use of a sockpuppet to circumvent a ban is a violation of wiki policy in itself, however I believe there is plenty of evidence that this sockpuppet is also a violation of the rules on:

• voting (as mentioned above)
• and Creating the illusion of broader support [84], [85]

RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account

It is important to note that when faced with a ban RJ eventually admitted what had previously been obvious to many, that his intent was to use "...advanced techniques of psychological warfare... most importantly, most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection). Hence, the RJII account served largely to wear particular individuals down, pyschologically, who were judged to be enemies."

In admits again to having multiple sockpuppets already prepared and engaged in wikipedia, "In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia... It is safe now for us to divulge that some of the sockpuppets will continue editing Wikipedia until at least the end of the year."

The edits of RJ and Vision Thing are so nearly identical, and so obviously from the same narrow POV, that it can't helped but be felt that RJIIs intent to be "successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally)" is being carried on via the account of Vision Thing. Circumstantial evidence is never certain, but I believe this is as much evidence as one could provide given the difficulty in tracking down all the sock puppets employed by RJIIs account. In the unlikely case that the circumstantial evidence I have compiled does not remove doubt that Vision Thing is a sock puppet of RJ he is at least a Meat Puppet (perhaps in the form of banned user Hogeye who worked closely with RJ in the past). Regardless, Vision Thing is clearly carrying out RJs explicitly stated goals of disrupting wikipedia and gaming the system. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. I would tend to concur with you. However as you said, this cannot be proven. I suspect the only thing that can be done in this case is to go through the dispute resolution process and get a similar result to that which was meted out to RJII. You could use the previous two ArbCom judgements against RJII as precedent. - FrancisTyers · 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that in any case, RJII also appears to be using a series of throwaway accounts to avoid detection. Accounts like User:Antitrust and User:C-Liberal which were registered since he vanished, made a couple of edits (only two in Antitrust's case) to keep his preferred versions in place, and then promptly disappeared seem like classic socks to me. --Aquillion 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the assumption, but nothing can be proven. If his words are any indication, RJII would thrive on this kind of speculation. I'd rather not give him that satisfaction. He can play with this until he's 80 years old, for all I care. I might suggest some professional help, though. --AaronS 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add to the above: CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs), who, somewhat comically, was blindly reverted by Lingeron (talk · contribs) in this edit, where Lingeron reverted three days of edits by ten different people to revert to a version by Vision Thing. Even if we don't assume that Antitrust (talk · contribs), C-Liberal (talk · contribs), and CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs) are RJII, it can probably be taken as a given based on usernames and contributions that those three are all one user... and I cannot think of any compelling reason why a user would run through three accounts in such a short time unless they were trying to avoid detection. --Aquillion 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Editor19841

User:Editor19841 has been spamming users with this message:

Hey, how's it goin'? I'm gathering support from Wikipedian Democrats to help bring the 2008 DNC to my hometown of Denver. If your interested, just post {{User Denver2008}} on your page. Anyhow, have a good one. Editor19841 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-19 05:36Z

Gah! Nonono... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've rolled back all the spam. I won't block because all this was a couple hours ago and he seems to be an established user, but I'll leave him a note. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur with the reversion and the warning. Wikipedia keeps taking baby steps toward being Friendster, and this is not a good thing. Geogre 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Deglr6328 attacks at Eric Lerner

User:Deglr6328 appears to "have it in" for fellow editor, User:Elerner and an article about him, Eric Lerner, examples include:

• Extreme personal attacks and uncivil behaviour aimed at User:Elerner[86]
• Smearing Lerner's work as pseudoscience [87], verifiable citations have been requested three times[88][89][90].
• Diminishing Lerner's status as a plasma physicist and plasma cosmologist [91]

While I appreciate that User:Deglr6328 personally does not appear to approve of Lerner, nor his work, promoting those views in a Wiki article is not the place to do so. I would like to see User:Deglr6328 banned from editing the article Eric Lerner. --Iantresman 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. We don't ban people from articles for having editing disputes: and in this case, I think, it would be a double standard to do so: WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL doesn't mean that the subjects of articles should be immune from reasoned criticism.. and the fact that the subject is actually editing the article, frankly, swings the balance the OTHER way. If Lerner is going to edit the article on himself (which I really don't think he should), he's going to have to accept that editors critical of him are going to edit the article, too. I'm going to get involved in the dispute and see what I can accomplish. Mangojuice^talk 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If the subject of the article was being equally uncivil, or presenting unveriable information, I'd completely agree with you about balance. But I accept your willingness to step in, and appreciate your time. --Iantresman 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner engages in personal attacks and incivility all the time. That's why there is an RfC for him that has been open for months. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing at AFD for ED

I was recent changes patrolling, and the following new users caught my attention because they already had User Pages: Fethawildthunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Magisgonorpanther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They claim to be using Wikipedia to send a message, the second of which has a link and a copy-paste from Waropl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s User page. And then I found the same message at Trazombigblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It seems that these users are contacting people who voted in the last AfD for Encyclopædia Dramatica to vote, again. All contribute the same message to different users. I contacted Trazombigblade and told him what he was doing was wrong, and he merely replied "I disagree" and he appears to have stopped. I listed them all at WP:AIV, and the first two were blocked, but it was suggested that I bring the other two here for input. Trazombigblade was the most prominent of these editors, and I haven't seen any other editors do the same, as of yet. Ryūlóng 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All are blocked. Wanted you to put this here because it's more permanent than AIV. That way we can track this a bit easier. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing.--MONGO 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

At what point does this AfD need to be restarted from scratch? --InShaneee 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think spamming and improper behavior on this AfD are avoidable (and that goes for both sides of the debate). Let the AfD continue and perhaps make a link or two to this kind of a post so that any particular closing admin might be able to factor in such examples of spamming/solicitous behavior, etc. (→Netscott) 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The wording on the AfD itself was also edited repeatedly *after* it was posted, making it sound, if I may, more severe and/or 'worse' than the original as posted. Is this an issue? Looking for comments from others beside original AfD poster. rootology 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Waropl doesn't appear to be blocked, but he wasn't one of the users who posted the same extremely long message. I would be suspicious of any new users who have user pages with the message "I am here to deliver a message, I am not a troll, etc." within a minute or so of creation. Ryūlóng 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been spammed on my email address that links to my User page by a user who is unknown to me in regards to this AfD. I don't know if this person is spamming everyone, or only admins, or only certain admins, but the behavior is highly inappropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This diff by Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) makes me wonder if that user is not our culprit? (→Netscott) 01:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My email was spammed also by User:Rptng03509345, who seems to have been indef blocked. Vsmith 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that user is undoubtedly a sockpuppet of another user. I'm thinking that user hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) might be our spammer. (→Netscott) 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

2007-07-19 SPUI

I'm at a loss to figure out which of the many SPUI probations have expired, or whether one is still active. But please block for at least a week, so that the rest of us can sort this out.

For the past several weeks, s/he has been edit warring over Ontario provincial highways. S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again. Ensuing signs of extreme embitterment.

This page was fully annotated (by me) with legal references. Apparently, SPUI is some kind of wiki-lawyer, without formal legal experience.

Today, s/he is at 3 reverts, all with the edit summary including "crap".

1. revert crap - READ THE LAW MORE CAREFULLY
2. revert crap
3. revert incorrect crap again

I'm at my 3RR limit, and ask that the page be reverted to the most recent William Allen Simpson and protected. (Please do not protect at one of the incorrect SPUI states.)

Likewise, at limited-access roads, every requested fact has been annotated, so that the annotated page is full of them, and yet SPUI persists in edit warring, covering the page with "original research" and "disputed" tags.

1. revert inclusion of crap
2. revert inclusion of incorrect crap
3. fine... I'll leave it in and mark it as the steaming turd that it is
4. more tags

This is an abuse of process. Please protect the most recent William Allen Simpson.

--William Allen Simpson 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an abuse of AN/I space, sir. — Jul. 19, '06 [14:42] <freak|talk>

Have you read the talk page of List of Ontario provincial highways? Myself and another editor have both told you that you're dead wrong, and notified you on your user talk page, but you continue to revert. As for limited-access road, everything I marked as uncited or original research is such.

You're also wrong about "S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again." I "lost" the one about Ontario, and have done nothing else with it. The one for Category:limited-access roads is still being discussed due to William's improper close; he was heavily involved in the debate, and closed it at his view when it could have gone either way. --SPUI (T - C) 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, Mr. Simpson closed it to retain the status quo, when no other participant in the discussion supported keeping the status quo. — Jul. 19, '06 [14:49] <freak|talk>

There aren't any magic admin buttons to solve a content dispute. The "block SPUI" button isn't it. The "protect the page in William's version" isn't it either. Haukur 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For reference, ArbCom remedies imposed Jul 5, 2006 related to highways - [92] Syrthiss 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways: 2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.

-- Drini 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This was perhaps misfiled at WP:ANI instead of WP:AE. Having said that, both parties are acting unreasonably in edit warring. I've asked them both to stop at once. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the very first sentence, I was unsure whether SPUI still had a current probation. Some clerk fell down on the job, as SPUI is not listed as a participant on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests/Involved parties since February 2006.

As to your other comment, you expect unilateral capitulation? Or that every page edit by SPUI should result in an individual Arbitration, rather than just reverting it?

--William Allen Simpson 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The page you cite has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee or the Clerks' Office. It seems to have been a private project of NoSeptember (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and was updated between April and June of this year.

I have not requested unilateral capitulation. I have asked both of you to stop edit warring. I expect you to engage in civil discussion. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns with my edits on the talk pages of the articles, and realize that you can be (and often are) wrong. --SPUI (T - C) 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that you were warned about civility, as well. The point of all this is that the ArbCom reiterated that there is no consensus, and to continue acting as if you have it is disruptive. --InShaneee 16:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus that (a) adding obviously incorrect information is bad and (b) removing {{fact}} tags is bad. --SPUI (T - C) 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact SPUI hasn't been blocked for violation both the civility and disruption conditions set by the most recent Arbcom is disturbing. If other editors involved in that Arbcom have to be civil and refrain from disruptive edit warring on highway articles, why is SPUI being held to a different standard? He is being disruptive, no one questions this above as it is without question. My question then is why isn't one of the Admins here doing their job. A block is proscribed and anything less then institution of said block does nothing but negate the entire validity of the Arbcom. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrators have discretion and are expected to use their common sense. Nothing would be served by a block or a ban at this point. Both sides are opinionated and a little unreasonable, but they're talking and no longer edit warring. I've warned SPUI about incivility as reported above by William Allen Simpson. --Tony Sidaway 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it serve as a warning to him that Arbcom is serious and that his behavior is unacceptable? Wouldn't it prevent the ongoing war on that page? If Arbcom decisions aren't going to be enforced that what is the point of having an arbcom? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a request to WP:AE. I will note that s/he is now tag teaming with administrator FreakofNurture to avoid 3RR.

--William Allen Simpson 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask for a page to be protected on your version, though. Protecting on a specific version isn't generally done except in cases of simple vandalism and the like; protection is supposed to be a preventive measure to help edit wars cool down, deter extreme cases of vandalism, and prevent vandalism to essential pages like templates and the main page. It isn't supposed to be used to defend one particular version in a content dispute, no matter how wrongheaded or rude the other party is. --Aquillion 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I pre-emptively advocate the immediate desysopping of any administrator who complies with outlandish "please revert to MY VERSION and protect it kthx" requests similar to the one made by Mr. Simpson. Seriously, get a grip. — Jul. 20, '06 [13:47] <freak|talk>

As someone who has to abide by the same arbcom rules SPUI does and the same rules SPUI has now flaunted I'm requesting he be blocked under the terms of his probation for disrupting and warring on highway articles. This giving him chances stuff is b.s. If it were anyone but him they would have been blocked, rightly so, under the terms of the probation (which explicitly forbids highway article disruption which warring is universally recognized as. If he's not then the Arbcom and it's rulings are a farse and should be treated as such. I would expect no less then a block if I violated the terms of that probation too. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dora Venter AfD

After discussion on here several days ago, User:Sceptre reopened a second AfD on Dora Venter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora Venter (2nd nomination) after the first one was messed with by User:Haham hanuka, the article's creator. Now Haham hanuka closed the 2nd nomination as keep despite no decision in that way (I know we don't vote, but nose count says 8-5 for delete, 2 of the keeps being weak keeps), at best this is no consensus. In addition, he voted in the AfD. I reverted his closing of it as he is too involved to be closing it. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? This is the second time he's impeded on AfDs for this article (an article that had been deleted four previous times as speedys [93]). Metros232 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Persistently acting in bad faith. Restart the AfD and block HH for the duration. (Alteratively, warn him and then block for a week if he edits the AfD in any way except to cast a single "vote." Thatcher131 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre blocked the user for a week and a new article was found on her between the reopening of the AfD and now [94]. So I don't know what exactly to do now. Maybe the AfD should be withdrawn to allow User:AnonEMouse the ability to expand the article? Metros232 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD has 2 more days to go. Whomever closes it should take into account not just the raw count of opinions but their substance. It is not unusual for an article to develop during AfD so that it ends up getting kept even if the early opinions are to delete. And there is always WP:Deletion Review if the outcome still seems wrong. Thatcher131 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In actual fact, it's a restoration of deleted material. I'm letting the AFD run, and HH's single vote should stand. Will (message me!) 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:AlexWilkes

Several other users and I have been having problems with User:AlexWilkes for some time now regarding his edits to football-related articles. He's not a vandal and I honestly believe his edits are in good faith, but many of them just aren't helping. He adds dozens of tabloid-style headings to articles (ie here), which is discouraged in the MofS, or duplicate (and unwikified) information already recorded elsewhere on the page. Furthermore, he never responds to his talk page and doesn't appear to even read it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. SteveO 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted them about WP:MOSHEAD and told him that he should try and understand that all articles have to fall under this style guide. Has anyone else tried to tell him about this, SteveO? Iolakana|^T 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Numerous other users have tried to tell him about this and other issues but with no success. Just read through the messages on his talk page and you'll see what I mean. SteveO 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Username block/vandalism acccount

Would someone kindly take a look at Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? This account appears bannable on both the username and the user's subsequent edits. Also please consider speedy deleting the image they're using to vandalize. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Username blocked. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks RadioKirk. (→Netscott) 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Username block requested: Haywood Jablowme

Haywood Jablowme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is innuendo for "Hey, would you blow me?" in violation of WP:U#Inappropriate usernames ("Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre"). —Caesura^(t) 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Will (message me!) 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NICE catch! I had to do a few double takes before I noticed it. Keen eye. --mboverload@ 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's one of those newly current "all over the place" joke names. Apparently, it began with a fellow in San Fransisco being asked to comment on a fire -- a man on the street. He said he would appear on camera and gave his name as Heywood Jablowme. The video editor didn't catch it, and his man on the street opinion piece aired with his name appearing in a graphic. That got the funny-of-the-week e-mails flying. Geogre 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where should inappropriate usernames be reported?

Up until recently, I posted them here, but nowadays I'm putting them on AIV. Is there any policy? IMHO, blatantly inappropriate ones should go to AIV.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here, at least for ones that obviously merit an immediate block. Controversial ones can go to WP:RFC/NAME. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed AIV is the place, for less immediate asking the user first if they'd consider changing is also a good option. --pgk^(talk) 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind. :-) (→Netscott) 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

help me

hi a vandal is intent on having me banned because he claims it is aginst the rules to have a aol connection he is intent on having me banned and has resorted to personal attacks please could some one help. for evidence please go to my talk page. --Hunter91 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Users 71.143.19.196 and 71.142.208.166

Yesterday, User 71.143.19.196 was temporarily banned from Wikipedia. They have been engaged, along with myself and several others, in a dispute over the Benjamin Hendrickson page. The article is regarding an actor who recently committed suicide, and the dispute is over a line that states how (gunshot wound to the head).

User 71.143.19.196 had reverted to their version at least 13 times (since July 8) before being blocked yesterday. Along with some "minor sins" (ie, not signing comments with four tildes) they committed larger infractions, including foul language in other user's pages, and repeatedly removing text, including warnings, from their own text page.

It appears we now need to add sockpuppetry to their list of sins, as User 71.142.208.166 has made the same edit today (and has also made comments under edit summary that suggests they are the same user). This user is simply going to dispute anyone (myself or others) who edit this page, and agressively challenge them by comments on their page. They seem to have little to no awareness of proper protocol. I will admit myself that I don't understand all the intricacies of how to mediate a dispute, so I really, really need some help here. Thank you. NickBurns 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a consensus growing that the information about the gunshot wound should remain and one user is repeatedly removing the notes of that. This appears to be a simple case of a WP:3RR violation, so perhaps this should be reported at WP:AN3. Cowman109^Talk 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, scratch that. The IP in question was blocked for 48 hours yesterday (see block log). Is this still an incident, then? Cowman109^Talk 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, scratch the scratching! I did not see the subtle IP difference, and it appears user:71.142.208.166 is circumventing a block to continue his revert war that is against general consensus, so the user should probably be blocked. Cowman109^Talk 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, thanks for noticing - I read your comment on my user page - thought you may have missed IP address #2 and was just about to come to tell you....NickBurns 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• A range block on 71.142.0.0/15 would get both and maybe prevent more, although that's 131,000 addresses. Maybe blocking anon only wouldn't be so bad, for a short time. Thatcher131 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't do range blocks lower than /16 on wikipedia and you really shouldn't do range blocks for any length of time at all. We are too big now, collateral damage from range blocks in now an almost certainty. Are they edit warring over just one article? If so, semiprotection will sort them out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The edit warring in question appears to be with this article in question, though the user has been blocked in the past for general "abuse" and "disruption". Semi-protection should be best, though, as it will at least encourage the user to get an account so we can discuss the matter (though it seems he is just persisting in an edit war and has been reverted by numerous other editors). I will bring this to WP:RFP. Cowman109^Talk 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Nonetheless, the user has continued his incivility with a personal attack and has said he will continue reverting the article every time someone else reverts it. Cowman109^Talk 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'd like to see him try. Reverted and semi protected. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - and wow, my comment in question above was redundant.. in question in question.. Cowman109^Talk 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

blocked user evading block; Amorrow vs CanadianCaesar

During the past few days some new users have edited Francis Crick, James D. Watson and Rosalind Franklin. Some of this editing activity concerned moving existing text from those articles to a new article called King's College DNA controversy. CanadianCaesar deleted the new article and indicated that it had been created by a banned user, Amorrow. Several editors have gotten into a revert contest with CanadianCaesar and CanadianCaesar put some edit protection on Francis Crick. I asked CanadianCaesar for information about what is going on but CanadianCaesar told me to ask Jimbo Wales, SlimVirgin, FloNight or Nunh-huh. This was my first stop on the way past CanadianCaesar towards trying to find out what is going on. --JWSchmidt 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the question? All edits by banned user Amorrow must be removed. All articles started deleted. This article Francis Crickhas been edited by Amorrow. I have not checked the others but imagine that CanadianCaesar is correct. --FloNight ^talk 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"What is the question?" <-- Can you show me the evidence that Amorrow is involved? There have been many editors of these articles in the past few days. How do we decide which are banned users? --JWSchmidt 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AMorrow is an extreme gynophobe who has been banned for his misogynistic behavior and stalking. I've never encountered him personally but his style should be pretty easily recognised. If the editing stinks like a skunk, it could well be Amorrow. --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From the pattern. You can follow him from article to article. These are his IP ranges. 75, 68, 67, and others in close proximity. This is a topic of interest. From his tendentious and tenacious style. Other things I can't reveal. FloNight ^talk 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of with JWSchmidt, here. S/he asked a legitimate question and was rudely dismissed by CanadianCaesar. Now s/he comes here for more information and is once again dismissed (although not rudely). The question is, where is there any information on Amorrow's indefinite banning (aside from a single note on its user page) and some way for a user (such as me or JWSchmidt) to identify Amorrow's edits without having been around for the original behavior? Powers 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to ask the question. It takes a few minutes to put answer together. Since you all are interested, I'm hoping this means you will help clean up the mess he has made the past month. ; - )

This IP 75.24.110.198 edits boths these articles. [95] [96] Then look at IP 7523104203's Contribution page. [97] You see the same overlapping articles. Once you find the article then I look for the other IP's. FloNight ^talk 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This information on AN might be helpful. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AMorrow tries to edit by proxy --FloNight ^talk 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And this information. Category with Amorrow's suspected socks. [98] and the Wikipedia:List of banned users FloNight ^talk 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to all for the information provided about Amorrow. As for CanadianCaesar, I am willing to be supportive of any Wikipedian who is devoting time to trying to control vandals and disruptive users. Also, for everyone who helps on this page, thanks for being here when people like me need you. I'm one of those folks who cannot deal well with the dark side of Wikipedia, and I really appreciate those of you who can and do. --JWSchmidt 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have now had a chance to look at many edits that are apparently by Amorrow puppet accounts. Above, Tony Sidaway indicated that Amorrow's editing often "stinks like a skunk". I have noticed this "stink" in a confrontational attitude and willingness to engage in multiple reverts when edits by these puppets are challenged or reverted. FloNight (see above) indicated that, "All edits by banned user Amorrow must be removed. All articles started deleted." However, some of the edits by these puppet accounts seem like valid contributions to the encyclopedia. The article that was apparently created by Amorrow and was deleted by CanadianCaesar was mostly text cut from other Wikipedia articles and written by other editors such as myself. There has previously been discussion about creating an article such as King's College DNA controversy and I am tempted to un-delete it (even if it was created by Amorrow) because it would be a useful article for Wikipedia to have. --JWSchmidt 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please don't! Andrew Morrow is a banned user like no other banned user. I don't care if he sometimes makes good edits.All his edits will be reverted. If you think the article would be useful for Wikipedia to have then write it yourself, do not undelete his work. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

      Theresa is correct. If he makes useful edits, those have to go to, and we can re-make them by hand if they're so good. Here (gotta scroll down to it) is Jimbo saying "Block on sight, revert on sight." That's all I need. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

      Or if you want the same thing without scrolling, see here. AnnH ♫ 07:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info, FloNight. It makes much more sense now. I'm not sure I'll be much help, though; I can barely identify MascotGuy. Powers 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When I followed the Amorrow puppets through Wikipedia, I experienced even greater "stink", particularly at Jimmy Wales, so I think I am starting to understand the seriousness of this situation. However, I also found MANY Wikipedia articles where Amorrow has apparently made many edits during the past month. Often these edits seem like serious contributions to the encyclopedia and the edits have never been removed. Many of these past edits are now all mixed in with edits by other users. It would be a lot of work to remove all of these edits. I started leaving notes such as this note about Wikia, Inc.. --JWSchmidt 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw your message on Angela's article and left you this message there. [99]

Some of his edits may look good but they still need to be reverted. Of course some may be missed. That can not helped. We try to catch them as quickly as possible, before they get mixed together with other edits. Not always possible. FloNight ^talk 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I created a stubby article King's College (London) DNA Controversy to replace the one created by a banned user. Note the name change. Please start from scratch rewriting it, remember not to violate copyright laws. FloNight ^talk 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see bad mojo with this'un

To whom it may concern: User:EETETE has been setting up a lot of sockpuppet or metapuppet accounts. For what reason I do not know, but I wanted to bring it to yout attention. Pat Payne 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Update -- his main account apparently has started vandalizing. in Talk:George W. BushPat Payne 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (forgot sig ^_^*

banned user Iasson editing as anon

213.16.157.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has two edits, both relabeling other Iasson socks as socks of Faethon, which is another Iasson sock. For some reason, he thinks it important. (One of them is a self-admitted public account, which he claims is being confused with Iasson; although RCU confirms. I haven't bothered RCU with this; if anyone wants to ask for confirmation, Iasson's page is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iasson. Septentrionalis 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Beyruling

I have blocked User:Beyruling indefinitely. All of his/her edits are vandalism or nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huge astroturfing campaign for "Christian30"

What does anyone think about this? I haven't done anything yet but have been observing the behavior of the following "separate" users:

• Rachel McLeod (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Zoe inPop (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Bethany Arbuckle (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Dan Nadine (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Renee Sanshaw (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Danielle Archanelii (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Abalaster Lox (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Rebecca Israel (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• David Arsenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zoe Coppins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ralph Itchi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Every single edit by these users seems to be here to promote a website called "Christian30 dot com", and the VJs, DJs, and other things associated with it. Google hits on this thing are awfully slim. Has anyone heard of this? Should the whole batch be AFDd? This kind of behavior [100] is what set off my warning light. Antandrus (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment All of these users sound like a teenager. They all sound like the same teenager. Seems to me an RFCU may be justified to confirm. Fan-1967 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• To me it seems more like an adult attempting to sound like a teenager. "Supported: Do this!! This is lyk soooo coool... lyk totally man!!! u gota do it :D !!!!!! woooooooooh!!! lol Rachel McLeod 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)" Would a real teenager actually go that far? I agree that a checkuser would be appropriate. Mak (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's major sockpuppetry going on here. Danielle Archanelii, Ralph Itchi, Rebecca Israel, Rachel McLeod and Zoe inPop are pretty clearly the same person. Blocking all the socks seems to be the thing to do. Rebecca 05:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. All are confirmed (via checkuser) socks of the same person. Essjay (Talk) 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All accounts, like, totally bummed out using my bodacious block button, dude. User:Rachel McLeod designated as the puppetmaster purely because she was first in the above list. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I found another: Danielle Cooley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't feel comfortable blocking on suspicion alone as all (well, some at least) of these accounts have contributions to other articles, not all apparently Christian30-related. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And another: Rebecca Rowland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Being used to support Cooley on Talk:Gloria Jean's. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Losing new editors

Wikipedia has a problem with losing new editors. I have seen many comments by editors who have decided to leave because they have felt unwelcome or have been treated roughly. As a newish editor myself the following experience might serve as as a case study. I put the Gill Langley article up for AfD (it has just been closed no concensus). The pros and cons of that are not the issue here, however. During the AfD SlimVirgin thought it appropriate to make a smutty joke [101] which though subsequently blanked remained up for nearly a day.

I considered that the report cited in the article was controversial - whether right or wrong that was my view. I inserted into the article 'The Next of Kin report into what is a contentious subject has, however, not yet been peer reviewed nor subject to critical analysis.' Again, whatever the merits I regarded that as factual point and my right as an editor to make it. However, SlimVirgin the creator, reverted my edit as (delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?)[102] and (rv stop this nonsense)[103]. SlimVirgin than put on the talk page 'BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights.'[104]. When I explained my position SlimVirgin then wrote 'You're talking utter nonsense....As for your attempt to poison the well in the introduction....'[105]

I gather SlimVirgin is an admin, charged amongst other things, presumably, with dealing with aggressive editors. Her comments do not seem compatible with either WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. How can I and other new editors have confidence that she will look after our interests when she is prepared to make these sort of comments to someone who she acknowleges is a new editor?[106]

I have spoken to several people who have expertise that they could bring to WP. However, they are reluctant to get involved because they have heard that if you tread on the wrong toes you can get flamed. From my experience I can only confirm that they are right. BlueValour 03:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I offered a view on Blue's talk, but I wonder whether this ought first to have been raised at Slim's talk page, at which I find no correspondence from Blue prior to his directing her attention to AN/I (my sincerest apologies if I've overlooked a post); surely AN/I does exist in order that one might solicit outside views with respect to the conduct of an admin, but issues are often resolved through direct communication, even in such situations as one thinks (as Blue seem to here) his or her interlocutor to be averse to discussion. Joe 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed post from banned user, as requested on mailing list. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And?????? Does the block (especcially issued by someone like you) make him an underdog here? 85.70.5.66 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

She has blanked her userpage as recently as May as a successful tactic to block other users from Wikipedia, at least for years if not forever. Quite a trick there: I didn't realize that page blanking held such strong magical powers. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin is typically a fairly ok person. She has to deal with a lot of rude people though, and I guess like everyone she can have a bad day once in a while, when the rudeness gets to her, eh?

Wikipedians are normal human beings who sometimes forget their manners, but in general they *do* know how to behave. To get wikipedians to be polite to you, even if they're rude to you at first, just be nice, be patient, explain things using clear logic, stay calm, and stick to your point. People will typically start to listen and start to behave like proper wikipedians again. :-) Remember that you're constantly negotiating where the consensus will be, and that everything you say will be archived for eternity, so stay professional. Kim Bruning 09:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardvice (talk · contribs)

Hardvice (talk · contribs) is calling several editors sockpuppets with no proof, [107], [108], [109] and claims the image on his userpage is a self portrait, stating "I took the picture of myself. That's about all it is." [110]. The image was uploaded on December 14,2005 [111], right after the story broke, probably in the news and on this website, which has the same image, and is likely a mugshot of someone else. There is zero proof he took the image himself, and the image is up for deletion and should be a speedy due to copywrite issues, as at least the website above clearly states "Copyright 2006 by Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." Hardvice has suddenly reappeared after a long hiatus since January 3rd to participate in the drama over at the encyclopediadramatica Afd, with only three other edits in between, interestingly to the last time the article was up for deletion, even voting "delete" then. Hardvice has claimed that he doesn't want his identity reveiled, but I can see no proof that he is the same person in the picture.--MONGO 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this diff relative to the spam that was sent out by User:Rptng03509345. Does it not seem rather simliar? (→Netscott) 06:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I direct also to Jimbo Wales's commentary here, in which he states "I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project." [112] I would say that this situation is an overt attempt to use a copywrited work, knowingly.--MONGO 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to comment that it would take long hours of dedicated internet stalking and bad faith and assuming bad faith to find every image I've uploaded and everything on my user page and try to hunt down some reason for a personal attack against me. By the way, MONGO it was user Hipocrite who did that, and they never told you to do this, so are you them?

Also I love how you two (or one?) never assume good faith and always assume bad faith. It makes it hard to assume good faith about you two (or one?) Hardvice 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain again how many wrongs it takes to make a right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So now, again, he accuses me and Hipocrite of being socks that I am some kind of stalker...well look at this stuff...go to WP:RFCU and get proof. I think the fact that you added the comment "I took the picture of myself" after it was pointed out to you and put up for deletion simply proves the point that you are flagrantly violating our policies.--MONGO 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is not a copyvio. The story behind the image is embarrasing to Hardvice, who wishes it to remain private. Zscout unearthed the reasoning and posted it to the possible unfree images page. Per Hardvice's request, and with Zscout's consent, I wiped out that edit using oversite. Suffice it to say, the image is most definitely in the public domain. However, this is all academic, since Fcytravis deleted the image itself. Raul654 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification appreciated. There really wasn't anyway of easily finding that without someone telling us, which Hardvice didn't do. I'd appreciate it if someone would explain to him that I don't use sock accounts and he needs to verify this through checkuser before he makes this accusation again.--MONGO 07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I saw Hipocrite's edits to the image and to the unfree image place. I did not see any Zscout. Hardvice 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My actions occured at the WP:PUI, but as Raul said, the edit was erased from the servers with my consent. All it stated was a source for the image and it's copyright status (public domain). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the original post by MONGO, I want to say that I've been doing too much conflict editing and I am going to try to cut back and stuff. I think unfriendly edits came out and that's not good, nor is parroting stuff learned on ED. Hardvice 07:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Or you can continue editing, but try and not focus not ED, on MONGO, on Hipocrite or even myself. There are plenty of areas where you can help, and neither any one of us will even be close. But if you want a break, take one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Executive

I recently noticed Mr.Executive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spamming article talk pages with this message. I have blocked the account for an hour and reverted the edits. Hopefully someone here knows more about what is going on here and can deal with it appropriately. The account appears to be a sockpuppet (only created yesterday). -SCEhardT 09:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is an obvious sock puppet of Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has an RfAr in process and who is currently banned for a month. We should block the Mr.Executive account indefinitely. -Will Beback 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Block and revert. You might want to note this on the RFAR page or tell Fred Bauder, who ran the first checkuser on him. Thatcher131 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - have set an indef block & will note at the RFAR. -SCEhardT 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Casteist And Racist Remarks

Someone is making intentional casteist remarks on some pages(mostly talk pages) related to Marathas. Marathas are universally accepted in Hinduism as Kshatriyas. But this particular user is slandering and maligning Maratha image by typing everywhere that Marathas are Shudras (the lowest caste in Hinduism). This is particlarly insulting to the Maratha community on Wikipedia. The Marathas, builders of a former Hindu empire (see Maratha Empire), being a proud community are aghast at this kind of humiliation. I request the admin to please check this user. He is working through different IP addresses everytime. And he is signing his name as "Manu". Here are hi IP addresses -

• 59.144.101.196 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.102.20 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.103.36 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.106.158 (talk · contribs)

This kind of nonsense slandering must stop.

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 10:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am white, but would saying that I am black or asian be an offense to me? No way. In fact, by stating that somebody/you might feel humiliated by comparison to some other ethnical / whatever group of people, you are being a racist yourself. Azmoc 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. While I don't in any way consider Kshatriyas better than Shudras, it seemed obvious to me that calling a Kshatriya a Shudra is an insult... Never crossed my mind that thinking that way amounts to buying into a racist system. Guettarda 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As racist and strange as the caste system might sound to us I really think it is inappropriate to refer to it as a racist system, after all, it is followed by millions of hindus, I really think we shouldn't pass judgement on it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism doesn't suddenly become acceptable by weight of numbers, so yes, I'm perfectly happy to pass judgment on it for the corrosive, corrupting, and, ultimately, stupid belief system it is. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics is the better place of this sort of issues. Tintin (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:221.134.8.218

This IP has vandalised Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh seven or eight times. Tintin (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Report it to WP:AIV.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cmoroney (talk · contribs)

Cmoroney edited the Somers, New York page with some self promotion:

Somers is also the hometown of the radical prog-rock band Pujols Divided. Drew Walraven, Andrew Macaluso and Steve Ballow make up the trio of musicians whose work has been hailed as "ground-breaking" (Rolling Stone), "suburb-shattering" (Blender) and "some of the most impassioned musicianship to be heard in years," (VH1). They are currently in the studio working on their sophomore release, "Who's Driving Tonight?" and will tour with Orgy and the Abstract Truth in the fall.' '

Some kids promoting their band, but it is irrelevant to the article and is blatant self promotion.

I reverted it (was not logged in at the time), but I believe that Cmoroney should recieve a warning.

- JDCMAN 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can a user deny an unblock?

Can an normal user deny an unblock if it's an obvious no?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea, except in the case of someone not giving IP address or autoblock information, who isn't blocked by name. Then, you could leave {{autoblock}} there and remove the request. I think otherwise, it's important that at least someone who can unblock takes a look. Mangojuice^talk 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about in cases where someone puts an unblock template on a user/IP that isn't blocked at all?--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a user or IP and they aren't blocked (or haven't been blocked in a long time), leave the {{autoblock}} message, if they didn't leave the block message. I guess it's also okay in cases where the block shows up but has already been undone or has expired. If you guys want to help, actually, one thing that would be very helpful is to go through the Reviewed requests for unblock, and remove tags that are old or for which the block has expired. The {{unblock reviewed}} template says that the request continues to be visible, but that really isn't true if most of the requests are out of date. Mangojuice^talk 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why not, generally non-admins can do anything which don't require the admin buttons close RFAs AFDs which are keeps, detag speedies which aren't really speedies etc. --pgk^(talk) 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected RFA --> AFD, as I'm sure that's what Pgk meant, and I *really* don't want to have to deal with the effects of what a misreading of the statment could do at RfA. Essjay (Talk) 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, better than that, has an anon ever tried to close an RfA? I'm sure it would be User:69.145.123.171 if ir was anyone...... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal......I won't make any block decisions unless I become an admin, it's not in my power to unblock or protect a talkpage from attacks if the user goes bad. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Liao sockpuppet unblock requests

Hey -- apparently a bunch of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets of Jessica Liao were blocked, and apparently they've all got unblock requests up with no reason. I've decided to {{unblockabuse}} all of them that I come across; each one is only requesting once, sure, but Jessica Liao is clearly abusing the {{unblock}} tag here. Mangojuice^talk 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Syrthiss 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring over the weather in London

Perhaps it's because London has been basking in 30 degree temperatures, but there's now an edit war over The weather in London. For a long time this was an intentional red link as an example of an article which should not be created. Now, NeonMerlin has decided to create it as a redirect to Climate of London and is trying to eliminate it as an intentional redlink. (Now I'm no climatologist but I always understood there to be a fundamental difference between climate and weather)

It does seem to me that NeonMerlin by recreating the article after several admins have deleted it is beginning to flout the spirit of the 3RR. I'm not sure where consensus is on this but he seems to be the only editor consistently on his side of the argument. Debate is going on at Wikipedia talk:Choosing intentional red links. Opinions welcome. David | Talk 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not still "trying" to eliminate it as an intentional redlink: I have finished doing so. Now, the only pages linking to it are those that cite it as an example of an edit war. An edit war which I am trying to end, not prolong, by stopping the use of intentionally permanent red links that look like potential article subjects. (See Wikipedia:Choosing intentional red links.)

In general, I support WP:1RR. However, I feel the deleting admins are out of process, since they are not discussing this on the appropriate page, despite that a note on the page itself, and the talk page, leads them there and asks them to discuss before deleting. NeonMerlin 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Weather does not = Climate, does that help at all?File:Face (Wikispecies Welcome Message).png--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but weather and climate are both discussed on the Climate of London article, which should perhaps be renamed "Weather and climate of London." NeonMerlin 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no they aren't, unless someone blanked the entire article when i wasn't looking--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dbiv says the redirect is inappropriate. If he is right, which I am not sure of, I would suggest making it a protected deleted page and using the template, now that it no longer needs to be red. My fear is that if it remains red, it will still be used as an example red link, spurring both well-intentioned edits and vandalism. On the other hand, if the link is blue and the page (or its talk) leads them to WP:IPRL, I think editors will choose better red link examples, i.e. phrases that don't look like potential article subjects. NeonMerlin 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:NeonMerlin does seem to be causing an edit war while claiming to prevent one. This includes recreating deleted content despite the exiting consensus to leave this as a red link, while in pursuit of a proposed policy which at this stage has had minimal discussion and as yet no consensus. --Henrygb 18:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault that not enough people can be bothered to speak up yet. However, bear in mind that nobody appears to have raised any objections to, let alone reverted, the edits that brought these red link examples into disuse in the first place. Instead of blaming me for a few admins' rash decision to speedy the weather in London and ask questions later, I'd appreciate it if everyone else could discuss the relevant guideline proposal on its own merits so that consensus can be reached and it (or an alternative) can become official as soon as possible. As it is, it will probably take all summer to get a guideline in place. That's why we have one of my favourite guidelines: WP:BOLD. NeonMerlin 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User revealing personal information

User:Karwynn is maintaining a series of attack pages in his userspace, which I expect few would care about. However, on two of these attack pages, he links a valuable contributor to wikipedia's IP address to his username. I have requested that he not do this, but he has refused.

Request to user: [113]

Attack page designed only to propigate IP address: User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted

Section of other attack page used only to propigate IP address: User_talk:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence#Might_be_relevant.2C_adding_for_my_own_later_review. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my good faith attempt to ascertain the best course of action here. I do not know the policy well, I am open to comment.

Perhaps this is unimportant, but please note Hipocrites appeal to a friendly admin about this matter who I have pror history with. Karwynn (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note in same talk page that same admin said nothing should be done. Any additional action by Hipicrite should be taken as trolling on this matter. rootology 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Any further attempts by Karwynn to "out" any other editor will cause him to be blocked. Last warning. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

admin Zanimum violating hot button article protection

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&action=history

Please review and get him to stop. This article is locked, is under AfD, and the crux of half the arguments revolved around perceived admin bias based on the fact an admin was attacked on the 3rd party site the article in question is about. Why is this admin being allowed to edit a protected article under AfD condtion? It needs to be immediately reverted back to this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&oldid=64682131

And this abusive admin stopped immediately. rootology 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Back on topic, this abusive admin continues to make unchallenged, undiscussed, unilateral edits on a protected page being discussed for AfD. We need an admin to stop him and revert the edits he is doing in violation of policy. Its a protected article and his edits are inappropriate. rootology 17:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zanimum has reverted himself, leaving only minor formatting edits. Move along, nothing to see here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is the second time an admin has changed content on this article in some fashion while it was locked, and editors had no ability to revert. What is the actual, official policy on edits done to locked articles? Zanium on the talk page also stated he would not revert, which to me is abusive. rootology 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you actually read the policy before making such accusations? --InShaneee 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I had read them.

"In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version." - thats my objection.

"Administrators should be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In most cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, unless a case of obvious trolling and/or revert warring, or blatently unsuitable content." not done, another objection.

"In the following specific cases, an exception is made:" - none apply. Thats it. I'm done. Cheers. rootology 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It says "be cautious"; it doesn't outright prohibit it. --InShaneee 00:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we saying that admins get final say on content then? They can unilaterally change ANYTHING on an article, and if a 'regular' editor doesn't like it, protection can be used as empowerment of the admin's viewpoints on what that featured content should be? Because to be frank, his breathless "the edits stay" can be construed by anyone as saying "I'm not changing it and you can't do a damn thing about" due to the protection in place. rootology 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the "be cautious" part applies to indefinately-protected pages, such as the main page or templates; the page in question is a "temporarily protected page", which falls under the section above the one you were reading. That says, in an extremely straightforward fashion:

Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies.

Of course, common sense should also be applied, and I don't think these edits were really such a big deal; but they weren't direly needed, either. Part of the purpose of protection is to force people to come to the talk page and participate in discussions about the article's direction; if admins start handling seemingly trivial maintenance edits on temporarily protected pages, that encourages people to leave the page protected longer, and increases the chance that editors who are generally happy with the protected version will stay out of discussions. The annoyance of being unable to make small corrections like these is part of what makes protection work the way it does. --Aquillion 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

People found some sources in real newspapers, not blogs of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and I think those should get linked at the bottom of the article, protected or not. Hardvice 00:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not something to discuss here. --InShaneee 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Alamo article

Recent edits to the Tony Alamo article have added the full name of a child who was allegedly abused at the direction of Alamo in the late 80's. Since no reliable source has printed the name of the child as far as I can tell, it seems that revealing the name in this article could potentially be illegal under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (rather, the laws passed in every U.S. state designed to conform to this federal act). I am not absolutely certain that this is illegal (as this would require research of a lot of states' laws), but given that every state has passed laws to conform to the federal act and because the federal act requries the states to keep child abuse reports and records confidential, I think it's definitely possible. My posting on the article's talk page explains the problem in a little more detail. Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If in doubt, cut it out. Generally, every state that I've ever lived in has not only kept the names of minors secret, but they have additionally ruled that such sealed records cannot be brought up at a later date, so it wouldn't even matter if the victim had passed the age of majority since. There is zero benefit and great harm to exposing the name. Geogre 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'd have to delete more than one edit, possibly violating the GFDL here. My personal policy is if in doubt don't delete. No one has opened any sealed records here, the info came from a web site. There was no prosecution so it was only an allegation of child abuse. The minor in question is an adult now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Inproper deletion

Hi, not sure exactly what to do here, this is a new problem for me. One of my subpages was being considered for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted. In the midst of ongoing discussion about its merit, during which 3 of the four participants agreed it was harmless, User:Tony Sidaway speedy deleted it without even mentioning the matter. THe reason, "attack page", was the subject on ongoing discussion on the MfD page. I have discussed it with him, proposing continued discussion and compromise, but feel his answer is unsatisfactory and request a second outside administrator opinion. Karwynn (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony acted properly; the top of the page begins with "Below are links to edits by multiple users. Because these users are administrators, they will likely use the article delete power to hide them." and Karwynn, on occasion in the page, is trying to figure out the ISP of one admin, MONGO. This is a form of harrasment and Tony acted properly to have this deleted before the MFD is finished. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is incorrect. The page is a copy of a former page, I am not the original author. Additionally, if that is the only problem, I will recreate it, delete the first paragraph, and delete any mention about the IP. Thank you for (finally) clarifying the problem. Note once again that the page was not an attack page. Karwynn (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

People, in the past, have allowed to keep evidence for related issues, RFC's and RFAr's; but anything that is trying to "out" an editor usually gets deleted for being an attack page. An example of outing is trying to figure out the ISP of a person, real name of a person, real location and their real job (unless, of course, the subject of the investigation gives it out willing). But since MONGO and others have not, then it is considered harrasment. It doesn't matter where it came from, nor if you were the original posted, the reason why we have pointed it to you is that the page is in your userspace. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm particularly shocked to see the results of another wiki's checkuser pasted in there. They may have low standards for IP outing but we don't. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is not the same as attacking. I agree that the IP addresses are a concern, but those could have been removed while leaving the rest of it. There's discussion of this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Karwynn also. Friday (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the entire thing deleted and not just the offending material? That was--as the note mentioned--a copy paste of a previous diff that multiple users were actively checking against. My note also said it would be removed after. It seems the IP info at most should have been removed, not the 40-50+ referenced links. Why was that information removed as well? It is all public record in the WP history; we had simply compiled it into one location for Good Faith analysis, criticism and review. rootology 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can ED drama stay on Encyclopedia Dramatica please?? --Cyde↔Weys 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

THe issue is not about ED, please make an effort to be informed and not dismissive. Karwynn (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't ED drama. See my above post. It is a criticism/review of whether Tony overstepped what is an appropriate deletion. rootology 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As you yourself (rootology) so willingly splurted above, "Any additional action {...} should be taken as trolling on this matter."

You're not going to convince people of the importance of following up your claims of supposed process violations when you continue to willingly post personal identifying information and dismiss the importance of avoiding personal attacks. This entire crusade of your fellow ED editors here on WP (defending the article, attacking people and then claiming process vios) is a major violation of WP:POINT, and an obvious (and quite pathetic) attempt at intimidation of users. Might fly on ED, but not on WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that it was MONGO's IP, and if it was, and confirmed (not to us, in general) as MONGO's IP by an admin, that info can be removed. If it wasn't his IP it's a random vandal IP and no harm to leave it up--anymore than the thousands of others scattered in notes all over WP. Was it appropriate for everything on the page to nuked and the earth salted? In any event, everyone else can fight this now. I had nothing to do with ED and came to the defense of what (opinion) seemed like MONGO's friends defending overreaching actions as an admin. I did not know that researching/compiling public WP records for a possible perceived violation by a user was against the rules. rootology 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Does rootology have an ED account? Begging the question? YOur premise is faulty, faulty, faulty. Karwynn (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. rootology 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever he claims, it's unverifiable. WP:V. Much like other trolls I've met (Karwynn, or whatever your prior names have been), you answer with a misstatement of the question. The pathetic actions of a troll are not often this conspicuous. And I sense from the response to your pleadings here that the community's patience is fading. Return to ED, or choose other areas of focus for WP... if contributing to the article is indeed your goal at all. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at every one of my my edits before this ED disaster pulled me in. NOTHING to do with it. I worked on my own little baby project, and a bunch of comics/TV related stuff. We'll have to just agree to disagree in good faith that this sad mess is littered with bias on both sides--possible bias on some staff/admin/whatever pro-MONGO, some editors/admins pro-ED. I'm done with this and am going back to my old stuff. I kept trying to argue that everyone stay neutral but the attacks just kept swirling from *both* sides (fact). Sorry if anyone's time was wasted. rootology 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like ED drama to me - someone gets ahold of MONGO's IP from a CheckUser on ED and then people on here run around releasing that information. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, sir. I had no idea if that was really his IP, that's why it was up in the first place, to compare contribs. I've stated here and copied that diff link to several other places that I didn't know if it was really his IP, and that if it really was, I would take it down because it would be moot. Karwynn (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In view of the nature and provenance of this material, I don't think assumption of good faith is appropriate here. It was correctly speedied. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly and feel that you came from a biased position in light of your history with MONGO and Hipicrite. Another admin should have dealt with this. In any event I'm done. Everyone else can fight over perceived or factual bias on this one. rootology 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde. This has everything to do with ED, and is therefore ED drama. I am sick and tired of this. This garbage does not belong on this site. We have much better work to do. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this page (and nearly all this ED related cesspool). I'm just sick of all of this. Sorry again if anyone feels their time was wasted--I'm going back to my old projects. If anyone has any important questions or whatever for me hit me on my talk page or email me if it's private. rootology 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if the discussion lasted longer than 5 minutes on this topic than it was too long. We aren't a internet hosting service. We allow some extra stuff on users subpages for the work of writing the encyclopedia or to make the place more enjoyable. If something is disruptive in anyway it needs to go. The sooner the better because it will cause less disruption that way. FloNight ^talk 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but sadly, as is often the case, the deletion of the "disruptive" material ended up causing more disruption than the presence of that material. Friday (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has been affected here, but I've also been getting email spam from at least two users about 'innapropriate admin action' on this deletion, which upon investigation is really nothing worth noting. --InShaneee 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sweet fancy Moses this entire issue needs its own notice board, it's clogging up both WP:AN, and WP:AN/i, get a grip people--64.12.116.65 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, cry me a river....the IP isn't mine anyway.--MONGO 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• missing the point? this is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, why is this here at all?--64.12.116.65 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt like adding something...there was a complaint, and this is the proper forum. You're missing the point anon.--MONGO 22:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant this entire header, why is it here at all? this meets a new level of off-topicness, even for AN/i, it has nothing to do with anything administrative, and it's not an incident--64.12.116.65 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• What's this edit <stalking deleted - User:Zoe|^(talk)> 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)>? Hardvice 23:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Meaningless is what it is, if he doesn't want to disclose if it's his IP, then that's his choice, you pushing isn't going to change anything--64.12.116.65 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

About Zoe's removal. I thought MONGO would want to leave it as it is and say, "That's not me." If he wants it hidden and it is him, that's fine, just don't say it isn't him. But if he says it's not him, that's different. The removed link was actually posted on one of these boards earlier by another user and it's still up to my knowledge. Hardvice 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's it. Blocking this fellow for blatant trolling. Three hours I guess. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Karwynn for this edit attacking MONGO. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

65.138.69.10

User:65.138.69.10

seems to be purely adding content to talk pages to attack other editors by saying they a) have aids b) are faggots and so on... from the context of the user history, I suspect it's a blocked or banned user.

A quick block might nip something nasty in the bud.

He has identified himself as banned Sockpuppet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brando03

--Charlesknight 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hunter91

Hi, I have a problem which encompasses a question on policy. As you'll see here, [114], Hunter91 (talk · contribs) feels that I'm incorrect in some of my advice to him and my actions in an AfD (all of my correspondance has been deleted from his talk page, but with history: [115]). He's removed votes from an AfD, claiming that they were by sockpuppets and he left no comment on the AfD discussion [116]. He also changed my nomination, leaving no comment. The users he has labelled as sockpuppets have no warnings for sockpuppetry on their talk pages. From what I can see, the user has a history of removing comments which conflict with his beliefs on the article talk page Talk:Battle_Field_2 like here. I feel that this user is distrupting wikipedia (to an extent), and am trying to get in contact with an admin to see if they can/will do anything about it. The response I'm hoping for is a kind word to Hunter91 and a revert of his edits to the afd page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_Field_2). Thanks Martinp23 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do not alter other people's comments. If he thinks they belong to sockpuppets, he should add a note to the discussion for the closing admin, but removing AFD comments or nominations without leaving comments is not acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am with Martin. I voted for the 'Delete' of the article, and then he comments saying that the vote was done by a sock puppet! I am most certainly not a sock puppet! I also commented against the article in the discussion page, but he deleted my comment. He's then accusing everyone of being vandals. If you compare the article of Battle Field 2 to Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, there's a huge difference. You gotta help. Seriphyn 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

Mark Bourrie has a semi-protected tag but is being edited, usually in a disruptive way, by anon. editors. I'm not sure what the problem is. Thanks. JGGardiner 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the article was tagged as sprotected but I don't see anything in the log that says it actually was sprotected. Fan-1967 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:NYTheaterHistorian Continues to post personal info

User:NYTheaterHistorian continues to post another user's personal information, including this individual's alleged current place of employment on his talk page [[117]]. Wikipedia pages pertaining to this individual have been deleted, yet, NYTheaterHistorian continues to re-post old warnings and discussions of the deleted pages on his own User Talk page, including derogatory statements about this individual and personal information.

Neither User:NYTheaterHistorian, nor his sock puppet User:OffOffBroadway (IP address 66.108.4.79) behave like legitimate Wikipedia editors. Any reasonable person reviewing the contribution history of "both" these individuals can see that nearly all of their "editorial" contributions have been geared towards a targeted campaign of harrassment against this person.

Will somebody, please, do something?--MissMajesty 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The information posted on my discussion page is all relevent in explaining edits that were done in trying to work towards truth on two pages, which have now been deleted due to being seen as self promotion and of being not worthy of having pages. There are no derogatory statements that I have posted; simly truths in explaining my actions. Information that she says is personal is information that was relevant and specific to the pages she created. No contact information such as phone numbers or addresses have been given; simply information relevant to the page, and available with a simple google search. user:missmajesty has been noted as puppet master of numerous logins and has been threatening me with legal threats. This user is selectively removing information off of my discussion page, yet leaving the numerous 'warnings' that she left for me in hopes that I would not make legitimate and factual edits to the pages she created, at the same time mistakenly leaving the same warnings for an administrative editior. She is also incorrect in stating that user:offoffbroadway is a sockpuppet of mine; that is a completely seperate person and I encourage any administrative research to see that this is so. Kind regards, --NYTheaterHistorian 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the information from my discussion page that user:missmajesty has questioned as personal. --NYTheaterHistorian 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

PoV Edit War

ED209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been continuously adding PoV comments to both Michael Di Biase and Vaughan municipal election, 2006. Myself and a number of other editors have attempted to reason with them, to no avail. Discussions on both article talk pages have shown that the only people who believe the information should be included are the two users mentioned above. Every other objective editor believes that they have no place in the articles. Could someone step in and make a definitive ruling please? These people have demonstrated they have no interest in abiding by community consensus. Thanks - pm_shef 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Di Biase had three consecutive traffic tickets 'misplaced' by the police, and this was suspicious enough for the Toronto Star and the local newspaper to report. How does a ticket just vanish? This would be a lucky coincidence for most people, but when it involves the allegedly corrupt Mayor of the allegedly most corrupt council in Canada, luck may not be involved. Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also where is this so called "community consensus"? If you go to the [talk page], you'll see that only one person agrees with Pm_shef, and that's JamesTeterenko. Bearcat says that he has "no strong opinion about whether the traffic incidents belong in the article" and CJCurrie writes "I don't have any strong opinions about Michael Di Biase, and I'm willing to grant that the information could perhaps be presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner." The question is, is pm_shef, the son on Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman, capable of writing objectively about City Hall? Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

serial copyvios and vandalism by Yr41193

Yr41193 (talk · contribs · count) has been uploading copyrighted images and either not indicating a license or claiming them for his own work. Today I have marked three images he uploaded and claimed as his own work as possible copyvios, Image:Jsesecurities.jpg, Image:Chevy07Impala.jpg and Image:ChevMalibu07.jpg. Yr41193 has now posted a strange message about an image I have not touched to my talk page here and then vandalized my talk page here. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And now I see Yr41193 replaced another editors's signature block with his own on his (Yr41193's) talk page, here. He may just be a floundering newbie, but deliberately misrepresenting the source of copyright images is not benign.-- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing own material in which financial interest exists

On the Attachment Therapy page user JeanMercer continues to add as a reference a book she wrote with two others, Sarner and his spouse, Rosa. Mercer receives royalties for this and is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which financially benefits from the book sales. She has been warned once about this and I put a note on her talk page as a second warning. I'd appreciate your advice and interventionn here. RalphLender 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form, but is it against policy? How is the book regarded by others? Would it ever be cited by someone not involved with it? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's self-published (or otherwise small circulation), it's not considered a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not self-published, but was brought out by Praeger, an imprint of Greenwood. This is an academic press that provides initial expert review, developmental review, and professional editing services. Jacket comments were provided by Elizabeth Loftus and Frederick Crews, and there is a series forward by Hiram Fitzgerald of the World Association for Infant Mental Health (the series was Child Psychology and Mental Health). This book was cited by the APSAC task force in 2006 with respect to the use of Attachment Therapy. However, as is the case for many serious books, the royalties have been very small-- I would suppose each author has realized no more than $200 from the book in the three years it has been out, rather less than it took to prepare the ms.. This is in fact the only single publication that gives a thorough analysis of the topic, and that is why I cite it.

I could, of course, avoid being the subject of such complaints if I did not reveal my identity, but I consider it important for people to know who is speaking about a subject so relevant to the well-being of children and families.

Incidentally, I applaud the distinction made by InShanee between self-published and other material, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that today there are a number of what one might call "printer-ready publishers" who provide none of the services of a company like Praeger, but permit authors to avoid having their work tagged "self-published." Such publishers add complexity to the existing problem of identifying authoritative information without careful reading and analysis.Jean Mercer 13:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Zereshk Internal Spamming

The user has been internally spamming to try and get a favorable outcome on this afd. Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. (Wikipedia:Spam) [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132][133] [134] [135] [136]--Jersey Devil 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm rolling back as many 'notices' as I can, and issuing a stern warning to Zereshk. However, it appears he's also been busy trolling for meatpuppets, which I think deserves looking into seperately. --InShaneee 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think that a temporary block is neccessary here, this kind of action isn't going to stop with a warning on his talk page and will just be brushed off. I also don't think it is fair to the rest of us who want a fair afd process and who do not resort to this action to get keep votes on afds.--Jersey Devil 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I've removed the messages. He's not currently spamming, and unless he starts again, he's not going to be blocked. --InShaneee 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If he starts up again, do what you have to do, with my support. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that he was also doing it externally, on the Persian Wikipedia: [137]. And I've been told there are precedents of similar behaviour: [138], [139]. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us on that I am going to tell InShanee in his talk page.--Jersey Devil 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Those posts all belong to the period before Zereshk was asked to stop spamming other pages. --Aminz 06:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question, and an important one: Zereshk has now vowed to continue spamming off-site, which of course he can't be caught in the act as easily. Any suggested course of action? --InShaneee 16:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain he's been doing just that anyway, in similar earlier cases too. And his behaviour is being rewarded: there are in fact around a dozen new keep votes on that AfD by now, almost all from Iranian users. It's exactly this sort of behaviour that has made pages like Misconceptions about the Shi'a (even worse piece of POV writing) survive up to three successive AfD's, apparently. Probably nothing much than an Arbcom ban would be able to stop him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a 48 hour block for the moment, and if I ever see that his 'groupies' show up mysteriouly in any more AfDs, I'll be more than happy to block again for longer. --InShaneee 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unregistered editor impersonating others.

After a messy content dispute, an unregistered user (IP changing, last seen one user talk: 24.205.142.99) is making all manner of havoc on Firebender, specifically talk page. He’s pretending to be other editors, making insults and so forth and signing the post fraudulently. He’s also inserting random spelling errors in other editors talk-page comments. Furthermore, his talk page had several attempts to talk to him about it, all of which he removed with a notice saying “+ Whateva' I'll do what I want!” I know I and others would like this to stop, for obvious reasons.--Fyre2387 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, though as you've said, the IP rotates. I've s-protected the Firebender page, so at the very least it won't be the target of further vandalism from the IP for now. JDoorjam Talk 03:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tribalwar AFD Page

Has gotten lots of hit with personal attacks -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tribalwar -- and has nothing to do with the subject matter. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend the personal attacks be removed, but would rather have clearnce to proceed. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty grotesque. There has been a huge influx of red accounts and IP's, all showing up in an instant and uttering nonsense. I'm not sure that anyone will be able to close the thing and feel secure about the decision, so I'd guess that DRV will be necessary. At any rate, actual personal attacks can be stricken through (the old <s> </s> tags), as that leaves them where they are but shows that the remarks are clutter and insults. Geogre 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nasty business, though inevitable - after all, it was nominated by a Wikipedia user with some sort of previous personal dispute with some (possibly many) of the forum members (see here and here). Nothing good was ever going to come of this - in fact, I suspect the only reason the AfD hasn't been closed as bad-faith is either that the editor is sufficiently well-established to get away with it, that the admins reckon a reasonably proper AfD process can still be salvaged from this mess (and I hope it's this one), or that no-one has noticed yet. - makomk 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrators pushing their own POV

This is a serious problem. Take a look here and you'll see that MONGO and tom harrison are pushing their own POV's and also not being civil (using terms "conspiracy theorist") How long is it going to take for wikipedia to ditch them already? They (and others) are nothing but troublemakers. CB Brooklyn 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where MONGO or tom harrison called you that. Mind providing a diff to an actual edit instead of the whole freakin' history page? Additionally, I don't see why you need to take an editorial dispute to ANI. Shouldn't you handle it with an RfC or something? Kasreyn 08:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like a case of administrators pushing policy to me. Just zis Guy you know? 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they are pushing policy at the expense of unsourced crap, something should be done! Barnstars? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

STERN barnstars. --InShaneee 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, removal of talk page warnings and minor incivility. Could escalate.

Deletion vandalism by User:Crossmr, on Furry Fandom article: [140]; then removes warnings from talk page: [141] [142]. User has history of previous similar behavior and was recently given a temporary ban. - 81.178.86.15 04:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

legitimate revert. User knew the content was disputed by his edit summary and the sources are dubious at best. Article has a long history of anon IPs trying to push negative content into the article, usually with no or dubious sources. --Crossmr 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A second revert. [143] Article has a history of POV-pushing from all sides (although my edit wasn't POV and had citations). - 81.178.86.15

Your sources are disputed. Discuss them at the appropriate place. Running to ANI to protect dubious sources isn't proper procedure.--Crossmr 04:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting content from articles because you believe the sources are disputed rather than discussing it first is not proper procedure. As I said on your talk page this isn't why I mentioned the incident anyway; your constant deletions and reverts of anything that doesn't meet your standard of verifiablity, and hostile behavior and attitude in general are damaging the article. You have a history of doing this and have been warned by administrators for it in the past. [144] [145] - 81.178.86.15 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was considering you were already aware of the disputed nature. Adding content without proper citation is seen as vandalism. You might also try and keep the discussion to the topic at hand rather than trying to dredge up something to discredit me. It shows the weakness of your point, and the block was inappropriate. Do you have anything to actually suppor the material you want to include or are you just trying to sling mud to cover your tracks? --Crossmr 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to throw around accusations of vandalism is a poor way to address this situation. If we can shift the conversation away from who's "guilty" of what and towards what the contents of the article should be, that will be good. Nobody is vandalizing here, because we are all out to improve the encyclopedia, so be definition, no vandalism. The only disagreement is over how to improve it, and you won't resolve that by throwing accusations at one another. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The contents of the article should focus on furry fandom, a genre which focuses on anthropomorphic animals. The dispute, in a nutshell: The Furry Fandom article has long been the target of so-called "humor" websites who think it's funny to attempt to get misinformation incorporated into the article because they think the editors who fix it are "taking the internet too seriously." Deliberately adding misinformation to Wikipedia does in fact qualify as Sneaky Vandalism. This has been a chronic problem with the furry fandom article.

User:Crossmr has been helping to improve the article quality by requesting references for material. User:81.178.86.15 is trying to cite dubious so-called "humor" websites as serious references; they are not.

As always, I welcome any suggestions of possible remedies to ongoing Sneaky Vandalism. SOP has been to delete it when it occurs, but this is generally an uphill battle against people whose main goal is to make editors waste their time for entertainment. —Xydexx 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Labelling Disinfo as a humour site is your POV - its Wikipedia entry doesn't refer to it as such. The source wasn't a humour site either. Again you refer to my attempts to balance the article as vandalism. This is exactly why I lodged the incident - it's an uphill battle trying to make any kind of edit to this article that goes against the grain of the opinions of the small POV group of editors controlling. It seems regardless of how many citations you use, they'll always take some issue with it, whilst completely ignoring the citations regarding content that validates their POV. - 81.178.86.15 05:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandalism is defined as: "Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos." It'd probably qualify as "Silly Vandalism," except after dealing with it for a while it ceases to be funny. The article has a long history of edits from people who enjoy adding non-notable, irrelevant, and even completely fabricated information to it for humor value. This is Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia. I refer to your attempts to incorporate misinformation into the article as vandalism. —Xydexx 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Xydexx, you may be right, that our IP friend is deliberately adding misinformation, but it doesn't appear to me to be remotely obvious that that's the case, and in my experience, deciding that someone else is acting with bad faith intentions is a good way to guarantee that the discussion doesn't go well. Let's put the "v-word" aside and focus on the content, and explaining very clearly for anyone who wants to read just what's wrong with the IP's edits, preferably at the article's talk page. This is a content dispute, and there's no reason the people involved shouldn't be able to resolve it without an AN/I thread over who think's who is a vandal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My addition was cited, and it's not actually vandalism to add content without proper citation anyway. You've yet to fully explain what you felt was inappropriate about my edits or sources in any case. - 81.178.86.15 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have on the talk page of the article. Maybe you should visit there as that is where the discussion should be taking place. --Crossmr 05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

155.72.100.4 and 24.34.73.135

These IPs (probably one person) had been vandalizing the Crispa Redmanizers and the Toyota Super Corollas pages. I've notified 155.72.100.4 on his talk page when he notified me on my talk page. Then 24.34.73.135 sent me this:

Hoy Putang ina ka na! tigilan mo na 'to pabalik balik natin. wala ka namang na-contribute sa article na 'to

Which rougly translates to:"Hey! <bleep> Stop reverting my edits. You don't contribute anything in the article." I'm requesting an indefinite block on these two IPs. Or any block will do. Even a sem-protect on the two pages. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 04:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Bonnieisrael

I'd appreciate another administrator stepping in here. Ever since I took a hard line against User:Israelbeach, I have been targetted by his sockpuppets and friends both on and off the wiki. Israelbeach crossed the lines and is effectively under community ban, but his puppets are still allowed to edit. user:Bonnieisrael is now trying to engage me in another personal edit war. As in: [146] Which I foolishly corrected: [147] And was of course reverted: [148]. I know I have a part in this too, but I'd like to point out Bonnieisrael's history. She was blocked by Slimvirgin as a suspected sockpuppet of Israelbeach, for this sort of behavior and worse. She was unblocked by Jredmond. Jredmond promised Slimvirgin to keep an eye out [149], Slimvirgin said she would reblock Bonnieisrael for continuing this kind of behavior [[150]. Bonnieisrael has since contributed almost nothing but more Israelbeach-type edits. Jredmond has ignored my protests about Bonnieisrael's continued disruptive editing [151]. I'd also like to point out that as an administrator, I could easily block any one of Israelbeach's sockpuppets myself, and I believe I would by fully justified in doing so - but I excercise restraint because I am personally involved. I count on other administrators to use clearer judgment. But mostly I think other administrators can't be bothered to check what these sock/meatpuppets are up to. --woggly 05:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about the rest of your dispute, but generally it's considered more polite to dispute someone's claim by replying to it saying "That's wrong" than to edit their claim to what you think is correct. --Improv 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And this my impropriety was the only aspect anyone thought worth responding to. Fine. I'm sure Israelbeach will be happy to continue populating Wikipedia with his sockpuppets, including the new baby: User:Jerusalemrose, and make many useful contributions to his self-promotion campaign wikipedia. I will no longer stand in his way. Heaven forbid, I might be tempted to be impolite again. --woggly 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wp willis

User:Wp willis [152] has done some strange stuff. Reverts following his edits don't work - bring up edit conflict with unrelated pages. When I tried to block the account - the record shows no block. WOW attack? Vsmith 11:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - the block shows up on [153] - hmm. Still cannot revert his changes to Age of the Earth [154] - and when I try to view next change I get an error [155]. What's happening? Vsmith 12:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to revert to older version of Age of the Earth brings this [156] ?? Vsmith 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an issue with the database earlier today, I think this may be screwed. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar problem on Earth which was fixed? by a vandalism edit by user:Wo0sh [157] - seems an odd coincidence. Vsmith 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems some of the the diffs above show something different now - maybe it was just a databas screwup. All those Ws gave me the willys :-) Vsmith 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of database screwup is crossing the streams. Make a null edit to uncross them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Dance Portal?

On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Dance, the Featured article is replaced with the sentence "ina hamash kose shere raghs kiloee chande baba sare karemon gozashtin ba tashakor". I guess its Persian but I haven't a clue to what it means, so I don't know if I should remove it or not (and besides I don't know what to replace it with). Annaxt 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been there since the page was created. I'd leave it or leave a message with the portal's creator. Naconkantari 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind about that, it was a template used on the page. Naconkantari 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both! Annaxt 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DangerZoneYes

I blocked DangerZoneYes (talk · contribs). Someone is jerking us around. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay. *cough* I mean, it is with sincere regret that I concur that this user has exhausted community patience and endorse this indefinite block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Self Promotion

The following was previously posted: On the Attachment Therapy page user JeanMercer continues to add as a reference a book she wrote with two others, Sarner and his spouse, Rosa. Mercer receives royalties for this and is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which financially benefits from the book sales. She has been warned once about this and I put a note on her talk page as a second warning. I'd appreciate your advice and interventionn here. RalphLender 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form, but is it against policy? How is the book regarded by others? Would it ever be cited by someone not involved with it? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) If it's self-published (or otherwise small circulation), it's not considered a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since mercer has financial interest in the book and her group ACT has a financial interest in the book, I'd thought that mercer's promoting and posting her book is a violation of Wiki policy. Furthermore, the text is really more of an advocacy and publicity piece than a professional publication. If you can respond here or on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. SamDavidson 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Myrtone86 blocked for a week for (repeated) disruption

I have blocked Myrtone86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week for adding an angry emoticon to the end of Template:UsernameBlocked [158]. He also added an 'autosig' which also needed reverting, as sometimes extra commentary can be inserted after templates - I could almost swear that he's been reverted and warned about adding autosigs before, but perhaps that was someone else.

If it needs to be said, and I really hope it doesn't, this is a completely inappropriate edit to a high-visibility template which regards a very sensitive issue - blocking users indefinitely who may not have been expecting it. It turns a rational and clear explanation into a statement that we don't take permanent blocking of users who may be editing in good faith seriously. The edit stood for several hours until I used the template on a user's talk page, had to edit my own edit to remove Myrtone's crap, and then revert him. For all we know some editors used it without noticing (the template is designed to be substed so whatlinkshere won't be any use in checking). Silly edits to templatespace are many times more damaging than silly edits to article, user or projectspace.

My block of a week takes into account Myrtone's 5 previous blocks, albeit two were later undone. Given Myrtone86's history of silly edits which have got him blocked several times in the past, I don't feel any more such edits from this user should be tolerated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been involved with him before because he had an incredibly stupid signature that used {{PAGENAME}} in it. --Cyde↔Weys 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I briefly blocked Myrtone in June for persisting in that after multiple warnings. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the autosigs, the editor I was thinking of who had been doing it before was actually User:Flameviper12, not Myrtone. Flameviper had a similar history of mixing good edits with phenomenally stupid ones (more stupid than Myrtone, it has to be said), including disruptive signatures, until he was eventually indefinitely blocked (for the third time, after being unblocked twice after promising to be good). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Myrtone86 has a history of constant disruption which he attempts to do in a way that he can pass off as an innocent action. Check a classic example here Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels. Suspect JoW is a sockpuppet of Myrtone86. Tyrenius 18:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Self Promotion

Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the son of Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman, and habitually edits Vaughan articles either by removing relevant information and claiming there is consensus for that, or adding complimentary information. When he doesn't get his way, he gets involved in edit wars and complains to an/i as well kissing the ass of his vast network of allies and admins.

Within the last month alone, Pm_shef has been busy. He has not only removed corporate donations from the list of election issues in Vaughan in this edit [159], but also removed compromising information about Michael Di Biase, including those 3 traffic tickets that mysteriously disappeared a few years ago [160], his $164,074 salary that is one of the highest for a politician in the country [161], his being appointed without an election upon the death of Lorna Jackson [162] [163] and the fact that he, along with father Alan Shefman, is being investigated for corruption and receiving.... corporate donations [164].

Pm_shef has in the past been warned by bearcat and mangojuice, and this did slow him down for a few months. But now he is starting again. He's even gained the attention of the local media, who have left him a message on his talk page, wondering why he believes corporate donations are not an election issue, and if this is the campaign of his father's. Can we have a temporary ban or some other measure to indicate to him the nature of this neutral encyclopedia? Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your second edit to Wikipedia. Don't you think you're diving into the politics and conflicts of the place a little quickly? JDoorjam Talk 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Flaming/Vandalism by anon user

Hello, I had a comment about an IP user that made a trolling comment to me: here, and I believe it is vandalism to get me to flame him (i.e. trolling). It's discouraging me, and he/she/it has been trolling other users as well, among vandalism. Thank you for your time. --VelairWight (my discussion) 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparent GNAA troll at large

Werto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

New account just created but contribs indicate an apparently experienced (banned?) Wikipedia editor. Makes some sort-of-reasonable typo corrections, tries to get Klerck biography speedied [165], uploads Rush Limbaugh screen shot with GNAA data in the form fields (Image:Freelimbaugh247.png) and posts racist trolling at [166] and [167] etc., still actively editing. -- Phr (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

2007-07-21 SPUI

SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone off the deep end. S/he's been edit warring on Freeway-related topics all month. There was the WP:POINT move of Freeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Highway with full control of access and no cross traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That took weeks to fix (that was prior to my involvement).

But today, s/he's gone hog-wild WP:POINT creating:

• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and
• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

And making hundreds of re-categorizations. Categories take even longer to fix than mere moves.

After losing the renaming of Category:Freeways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Limited-access roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and then losing the July 1 CfD to rename it back, a Deletion review, a re-listing for more comments, and losing the CfD relisting, and on the way to losing another Deletion review. I've posted two notices at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, should I make it 3, 4, 5?

Please stop this quickly, it's gotten ugly!

--William Allen Simpson 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is too complex for me to feel comfortable doing anything about, since I have no previous knowledge of this issue. However, a quick glance at the block log shows quite a colorful history. If there really was ill behavior here, I would suggest a somewhat long block - probably at least a week- as there sure seems to be a history of other disruptive behavior. Friday (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See the arbitration case from a couple weeks ago (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways). I recommend an immediate block to stop further damage if the editing is still in progress; decide afterwards how long to make it. Phr (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no "ill behavior" here. Most people in the deletion discussion begun by William do not wish to see these categories deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Energyblue blocked as sockpuppet

I just put an indefinite block on Energyblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being a SOCK of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My reasoning for this is:

• His first edit was to "out" pm_shef, the apparent archnemesis of VaughanWatch [168]
• His second edit was to report pm_shef here [169]

This seems like a pretty clearcut case for sockpuppetry of a blocked user, but I did want to post it here to make sure that no one sees any issue with this. -- JamesTeterenko 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm cool with it. Even if he's not VaughanWatch, he's pretty obviously a sockpuppet. JDoorjam Talk 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)